User talk:Aalugobi
Welcome[edit]
|
May 2015[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Free web hosting service. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 21:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Please read[edit]
Blogs and Youtube videos by bloggers are not what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. Also, "...however, these often come with some limits on usage such as bandwidth, disk-space, nodes, database and other constraints. Anyways, few of them are good enough to host a low to medium traffic websites." is original research and not written in an encyclopedic tone. --NeilN talk to me 21:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the fact. But I am still not convinced about the fact that websites or youtube videos couldn't be a reliable source of information particularly if they are partner verified channel in YouTube or also if they are the popular established websites. --- User:aalugobi
- Please read WP:BRD. If you insist on reverting back in original research and poorly sourced material over and over again then you'll run into difficulties sooner than later. --NeilN talk to me 22:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear Neil, first of all I am not trying to intimidate you but it doesn't seem convincing and I am putting my point of view. And please don't get offended but please do satisfy or criticize my point with logic. Warm regards, Aalugobi
- But your point of view doesn't belong in articles. See our verifiability policy. "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." As for YouTube, please carefully read what I wrote. The CNN and BBC YouTube channels are absolutely reliable sources. A YouTube channel by a random blogger is not. --NeilN talk to me 22:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Again to say that YouTube video by a random blogger could be unreliable is not true in my opinion. For example, if a random blogger uploaded a video of some engineering testing presented in a renounced university, cannot we consider that reliable? I think in this scenario it has to be dealt case by case. Also, like they say - "Picture speaks itself", similarly, we can judge by video if its authentic or not. Moreover, for particular niche of their field of expertise, some unheard professional bodies, organizations or established websites may be more reliable than more generic parties like CNN, BBC. --Aalugobi
- No, we can't. Please actually read the policies and guidelines I'm linking to - WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP (professional bodies fall under this). The blogger has to be a recognized expert in the field. Otherwise, they're self-published sources which are not acceptable. --NeilN talk to me 22:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
June 2015[edit]
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Free web hosting service. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please see WP:REFSPAM. bonadea contributions talk 06:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear, Bonadea I am still not convinced about the fact that the external link was inappropriate in terms to article. Also, I clearly understand the fact that Wikipedia uses nofollow tags. How could a relevant article be considered advertising or promotion when the website in consideration neither sells any product nor any advertisement. I do understand & respect the fact that you might be senior in wikipedia forum or may be a older member than me. But please don't overexercise your power on false ground, disallowing constructive citations. --aalugobi
- It's not constructive, as it isn't a reliable source, and so the addition of this unreliable source serves only the purpose of promoting this website. Also, according to WP:3RR, you mustn't revert content more than 3 times in a 24 hour period- you have done it 4 times. Please stop, or you will be reported for edit warring. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Now you guys are truly offending me. I am trying to keep my polite. Rules are meant to be amended if it is not in the benefit of wiki media. But like they said, don't do bad, don't fear. I am strong on my standview that it is no way a promotion or vandalism. You guys have reverted similar constructive citations from "Civil Engineering" page as well. What's wrong?????. The citations made to both of the "Free Web Hosting Services" page and "Civil Engineering" page were constructive and neither of the links I cited pose any advertisment or promotion worth material. The engineering link I cited is a popular information source in its field. I am unsure about web hosting site, but still its article which I cited is very much relevant and contextual. Anyways, wiki is demanding for the citations. And you talked about reverting it 3 times, I will do it as long as I feel I am right in my stand-view, and as long as you guys revert it back (I will stop if you guys stop). You can file the report if you want but I too have freedom of speech & opinion and to make contribution as long as I feel its constructive. And neither of you have right to disallow constructive citations on false ground. Sorry once again, if it is offensive, but my point is clear I guess. ---aalugobi
- I've not looked at the Civil Engineering page, however the citation on "Free Web Hosting Services" isn't a good source, as has been explained by 3 different editors now. And I've reported you for edit warring, since I already warned you about WP:3RR but you continue to revert. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Aalugobi reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: ). Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much, actually I didn't know the tool or way to put a notice to administrators. Otherwise I would have done it myself reporting the act of Neil and Bonada. Anyways, I am ready to face the court trial. Lets wait for the hearing. I too want to discuss the matter in open ground and put my point of view. Thanking you: --aalugobi
Blocked[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.