User talk:Alexis49

Quote in Sheikh Abdullah article[edit]

Hi Alexis, I see you've put a lot of good work into this article. But I believe the quote should not appear at the start of the article. If it is important it should be placed somewhere else where its importance is explained. Have a look at Wikipedia:Layout#First_paragraph Thanks Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 12:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC) The quote may be important but its not in the right place. Putting it back without justification equates to vandalism. What you are doing is diminishing the article's quality as I've explained above. Please don't add that quote again without explaining why either on the article's talk page or on your talk page by replying to this. Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 23:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ziphon, The quote puts the whole article in perspective.The article without the quote is like a picture without a frame.Please do not spoil the article by removing the quote.How would you like to remove a nice picture from its frame?You would not.So do not remove the quotesThe article is fully referenced.Do not put notes referrring to it as personal just because you do not like the style .Please!Alexis49 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Alexis49[reply]

Thansk for replying. Its not the quote which is the problem. Its that it should not be at the start of an article. Remeber this is not an essay your writing but more so a factual error. You should have a look at the link above about layout of articles. The first paragraph should summarise the main points in the article. Its not that I don't like the style, but the style is not appropriate for an encylopaedia article. If you still disagree with me I don't mind getting a third opinion. Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both ,

I agree with Alexis 49.Needless quotes detract but the quotes in this article make it immediately clear to the reader what the article is about.Just reading the quotes draws attention to the multifaceted personality of Sheikh Abdullah and his importance in Kashmir Politics even if the reader does not read the rest of the article.So quotes in this particular case are best left at top scribe (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The quote does not belong at the beginning of the article--that may be very appropriate for a book chapter, but is not how an encyclopedia is presented. Wikipedia has a look and feel, and the article should conform to it. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the quote does not fit at the beginning of the article. Is there a quote template that can be used? Also, you characterization of Ziphon's edits as vandalism is not helping solve what is a content dispute - it's not vandalism. Kevin (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ziphon that a quote doesn't belong at the top of the article. I'd ask you how many articles on wikipedia begin with qoutes, and how many begin with a huge block of bold text. The answer is not many, and none that are widely read and well recieved by the community at large. There may well be a place for the quote, but that place is not at the top of the article, and not bolded like that. At first glance, the block of text makes the article look less than it can be. It doesn't work very well with the style guidelines, as others have pointed out, but it's worse than that. It's visually rough. That, ultimatly, might have the effect of discouraging a reader from finding out more about the Sheikh's life, which I suspect is the opposite of your intention. So, please, include the quote in context, in the article, but don't post it at the top like that. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to let you know that I went ahead and moved the quotes to the article's talk page, so that discussion can continue. I removed them from the top of the article to improve its look and feel while this discussion is underway. No matter what happens with the quotes, ultamately, I'd ask you to take a look at the manual of style to help them fit into the article more seamlessly. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about not italicizing or using bold letters is valid and I am removing them but I still feel that removing quotes from the top will spoil the article so I am replacing them without bold letters or italicsAlexis49 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all readers.Your concern is appreciated and I have reformatted the quotesAlexis49 (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted most (but not all) of your edits because they seem to be adding a lot of unsourced commentary, such as the comparison of Sheikh Abdullah to Dick Whittington. Also, the last set of edits seems to have lost all the internal wikilinks. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is sheer vandalism and I am reverting itAlexis49 (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to readers[edit]

Putting notices on a fully referenced article just because of a personal opinion on style spoils the article and so is a sort of vandalism.If this is freely permitted every article in Wikipedia would have a notice on it.Please avoid it. NawlinWiki thinks that articles should be like Ramji Lal's notes bare facts and no observations.I do not blame him as like myself he is most probably a product of the Indian Educational System which promotes rote learning with no originality but what he has done is unadulterated vandalismAlexis49 (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "the Indian educational system" (which I did not go through). It's Wikipedia's policy requiring a neutral point of view. This is a general reference encyclopedia, not a place for your (or anyone else's) opinions. Originality is a great thing, but not in an encyclopedia. I suggest that if you have specific observations (that cite reliable independent sources), you discuss those on the article talk page before unilaterally inserting them into the article against policy. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Whittington refers to a story with a moral very relevant to the events desribed and only someone with a very peculiar view of neutrality will consider the reference to Dick Whittington to introduce a very strong bias in an article which interferes with its neutral point of viewAlexis49 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

NawlinWiki (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You're correct, I should not have done the block myself. I strongly suggest you not continue to make the same edits, or someone else is likely to block you.

Request handled by: NawlinWiki (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NawlinWiki (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hav eleft amessage at the blocking admins page asking for them to review the block given that they seem to have been edit warring with you. We have a strict policy that only neutral admins who are not involved in a dispute with an editor may block them and on the face of it this block is in contravention of this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for drawing attention to this policy.Administrators should not contravene rules themselves.Fairness keeps Wikipedia ticking.Alexis49 (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Warning[edit]

NawlinWiki did the right thing by unblocking you but that does not mean that your actions were beyond reproach. Far from it. I could have just have easily endorsed your block and many admins would have supported this because your actions were very disruptive and the edits you were seeking to force on the article broke standard formatting and internal linking. This is not acceptable. Please be very clear, if you resume edit warring you will be blocked again and this time it will be an independant admin and the block will stick. Please read WP:1RR. This is a very useful essay on avoiding edit warring. Also, please read our policy on concensus. You do not have the right to force your POV into an article over the objections of other editors. Please discuss and reach agreement if your edits are opposed or reverted. If you do this you will not stray into further trouble. ?OK Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to Alexis49[edit]

It was I who first created the page on Sheikh Abdullah and right from day one it has been subject to vandalism and edit wars(see history).This only shows that the topic is a fascinating one dealing with a universal struggle for human rights and universal justice of which Sheikh Abdullah was a symbol.Many would like all his memory to be obliterated while others would equally want to make the world aware of veritable facts which is the real purpose of an encylopaedia.My advice to you is to ignore vandalism and edit wars and keep on adding facts to the corpus.The facts are never lost they only get moved to history section from where they can be retrieved by those who are interested if they are worth retrieving.Much of what I had posted on Wikipedia has been taken up by other interested American websites where it remains available to all.Keep on spreading the Lions roar and never mind the jackals! scribe (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request for second opinion[edit]

On this page consensus was reached that Quotes put at top should be moved and integrated in the article.Following the consensus The quotes were moved and integrated with the article.These were subsequently deleted by one of the administrators Nawlinwiki without assigning a reason and although the quotes were very important for placing the whole discussion in perspective.I would like to have opinion of other editors on ethics of deleting content over which consensus was reached.If it is done then what is the use of obtaining a consensusAlexis49 (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]