Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to User_talk:Mar4d#Help_requested_for_Taxila_page while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. In the context of the Taxila move request, such edits could also be misconstrued as WP:STEALTH or WP:VOTESTACK. Please be more careful in the future. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Please take note that the user below, PolandHistoryProf was banned on 6 July 2017 as a sock puppet of User:Coconut1002***Willard84 (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Lahore, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive. Your concern regarding the use of 'Maratha era' has been addressed - While 'Post-Mughal' violates W:NPOV and is also factually incorrect (given that the Marathas succeeded the Durranis and not the Mughals), the use of Maratha 'period' is appropriate given that it is too short to be called an 'era'. Also, please discuss change in verified content on the relevant Discussion Page before removing any content. Thank you.--PolandHistoryProf (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't removed content based on whether it is sourced or not - I removed a irrelevant block quote. And Post-Mughal is more appropriate given that the article goes from Mughal to Sikh, and the intervening period is Durrani AND Maratha, so I dont know where your POV argument comes into play. In fact, the exaggeration of Maratha importance to Lahore history might instead be better termed as POV than me changing the header to include the reality that in the post mughalperiod, the city was contested by BOTH Marathas and Durranis. Both took advantage of a chaotic post-Mughal power vacuum, hence post-Mughal is the better descriptor, as it addresses the chaotic and anarachic period following Mughal rule during which both the Durranis and Marathas took advantage. This anarchic period lasted until Sikh rule. The post-Mughal period had no clear ruler. In fact, Maratha rule was so tenuous that they left behind not even a single monument. That the Narathas came second after Durranis doesn't change this - can add in a sentence about Durranis when I'm at a computer.

Also, Had I changed it to "Durrani period," then you could have conceuvably accused me of POV since I'm Pashtun like the Durranis. But that's not what I did.

In fact, while referencing me to Talk page, the reality is that you should have discussed it on the talk page before inserting a new header for a section. You in fact made the bigger change, not me. It was "Post-Mughal" before it was changed the Maratha, not the other way around. -Willard84 (my phone isn't logging me in for some reason)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war on Sabarmati Express, Lahore and much more. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Capitals00 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a most ironic statement, considering that you are the one reverting well-cited edits with the bogus accusation that is is Original Research. You further made a claim that the "hypothesis" was outdated without explaining why in the Discussion page as requested. Willard84 (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion piece from 2002 is not reliable source enough to present it has mainstream. Capitals00 (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00:Actually, unless you can show WHY that is not the case, then you're wrong. Sorry. The fact that the story was published soon after the events of 2002 doesnt invalidate them. You must show WHY it is not valid. Age alone is not a reason. Please discuss on the relevant page's discussion board.

And secondly, it was not original research as you claimed. That was a bogus accusation.Willard84 (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is original research when you treat the source as more important than it actually is. Capitals00 (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00:No thats complete nonsense. This is what the policy says as per WP:NOR

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist"

"The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed"

I've also referred to a dispute resolution committee your false assertion that consensus has been reached regarding the edits on the Lahore page. One user soliciting your approval for a change is not consensus. And if you're trying to catch me in a 3RR trap, it wont work.Willard84 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your story was just an allegation. Per WP:BRD, you don't have to revert until you get editors to agree to a specific version, you should know that by now because your disruption on a number of other articles is just as prevalent. Capitals00 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you just make sweeping statements without backing up your claims. The story was not an allegation. It was also reported in a reputable news source, the Washington Post. That you do not agree with the source is irrelevant until you can demonstrate why it is the OR that you falsely claimed it was. Willard84 (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where it was? Few news agencies copy pastes each others articles on similar dates, but it doesn't make the entire story reliable. What matters is if the same story has been referred as legible by scholars, academics in reliable publications. Capitals00 (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your first question. The article was originally published in the Washington Post. Did you even read the citation? In my edit I had even mentioned that it's mirrored on Milli Gazette because WP doesn't post archived articles prior to 2002. Are you suggesting that the article was made up, or something? And of course its legible, what are you talking about?Willard84 (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Washington Post is so reliable that the stories it breaks about the Trump Administration are taken in high regard throughout the world. If you want to dispute the reliability of Washington Post, then thats going to be a losing battle.Willard84 (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your first statement "you just make sweeping statements", not Washington Post. The report gives link to [1] as a source, but it has been long removed from WashingtonPost. While MilleGazzette is itself unreliable source, "We are Indian Muslims' First NEWSPAPER in English. Started in January 2000 with both online and print editions, we alhamdulillah represent all Muslim sects" its website says. Capitals00 (talk) 01:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 'sweeping statement' comment was in regards to your false assertion that articles of a certain age are not longer deemed reliable. And yes its's mirrored - I've already made that clear. WP does not post articles in archives prior to 2005. Are you now suggesting that Milli Gazette didnt accurately transcribe the article? I'd like to hear your reasoning why that is that case aside from the fact that it is a Muslim paper, because that reeks of prejudice. And where did you come up with the sweeping assertion that MG isn't a reliable source anyway? Did you just make that up, or can you actually show me where this decision was made? I'm actually interested in this because i've seen MG cited several times throughout the years, and would be interested in reverting these edits if you're right. Willard84 (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I found the WP direct link. I'll add it to the relevant page. Willard84 (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't treat sources that are written with a specific POV as reliable. For example The Christian Post. It is still yet to be seen if you can bring out sources where scholars who treat this opinion piece as legible. Capitals00 (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the specific POV you mentioned? Please clearly demonstrate this instead of falsely accusing the author of pushing some unfounded POV.

The author simple recounts events, i'd be glad to head why you think otherwise. Anyway, I found the WP mirror instead of MG, so the issue of MG's reliability is now moot.

And again, where did you come up with this assertion that an article must be cited by other scholars in order to be deemed reliable? Thats not what the WP:NOR as far as I can tell, so it seems that you've made up this additional requirement.

And again, what are you saying when you mean "Legible?" Legible means that something that is able to be read, and is almost exclusively used in reference to handwriting. Are you saying that the WP post is illegible? That makes no sense. Willard84 (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't make the unreliable source any better. Also "WP does not post articles in archives prior to 2005" is also incorrect. See [2][3], 2 examples right here. What you are saying highly contradicts WP:NOTNEWS, we need reliable scholarly sources to counter the mainstream theories, not one opinion piece from 2002. Capitals00 (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the 2005 thing. I already mentioned that. Did you not see that I have already said that I found the WashPo mirror? I already admitted I was wrong.

And where have you come up with the idea that it was an opinion piece?Willard84 (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for your made-up assertion that nothing is reliable unless quoted by someone else (and I stress that it seems you completely made up this requirement): Here you go, here's a source which cites Chandrasekaran's piece. here too heres a third heres a fourth.Willard84 (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used WP to refer to Washington Post and Wikipedia. I see where confusion may have arisen. Willard84 (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2 of Human rights sources have referred the report, but they didn't made their actual report any equivalent to this article. A two or three sentences maybe enough with the attribution to Rajiv just like this source has done. That means there is no need to put this on lead but on the next section. Capitals00 (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so now you've added an additional requirement that the article must be cited not just by different authors, but also different publishing houses? And i gave 4 examples, so even if two are from the same publishing house, that means that there are three different publishing houses quoting the story. This is of course, a pointless exercise because you simply made up this new requirement that a source be cited by other scholars before deemed reliable.

The link you just provided shows that Rajiv's story is credible enough to be cited. The fact that you don't like what it was published in is irrelevant. So is your fake requirement that all sources need to be cited in a second source to be deeemed reliable.

You still havent showed me anywhere in Wiki that supports your bogus and made up requirements. Its now plainly obvious that the issue isn't the sources reliability...Willard84 (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you also haven't explained how youve come to the conclusion that this was an opinion piece. It was a news article. Even the title "Provocation Preceded Indian Train Fire; Official Faults Hindu Actions, Muslim Reactions for Incident That Led to Carnage" makes it obvious. That isn't how titles of opinion pieces are printed. And opinion pieces are printed in the OPINION section of a paper, almost never in Section A (front page) as this story wasWillard84 (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDHT is not going to help you. There were many opinion pieces about this story, we can't cite them all. Did any investigation support Rajiv's assertions? If they didn't then they are just opinion. Capitals00 (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me for not "getting the point" because your fake requirements are the figment of your own imagination. There is nothing at all in wikipedia's pages that support your bogus and made-up requirements. And again, it wasn't an opinion piece, and your self-serving definition of what constitutes an opinion piece is equally bogus.Willard84 (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take your further edits to the talk section of the Godhra train burning page, because its useless for you to post the same info here and there.Willard84 (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again I am saying, get consensus on Godhra train burning‎ first. In place of edit warring every single page to push your POV. Capitals00 (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are engaged in WP:WIKIHOUNDING that you made an unhelpful comment at RSN[4] despite it was not needed and you never edited that noticeboard ever before,[5] you went there only after my contribution history, it had do nothing with any of the content dispute that we are having on other articles. Wikihounding is considered as form of harassment and is a blockable offense. Capitals00 (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the WP:WIKIHOUNDING article you posted: what I did was absolutely not harassment because I did not target you at all, and nor did I make any contact with you. Nothing I wrote on the board even referenced you. I offered a solid opinion based on my background in Medicine that had absolutely no reference to you.

And did you notice that my input was actually far more insightful than yours? You didn't even address the question which was asked, so who are you to criticize what I added as unhelpful??

Take note from the page you posted: "[Harassment is done]... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. " If what I did distressed you, I apologize and that wasn't my intention.

The next line says: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purpose" Perhaps you're also not aware, but @Kautilya3: (who also made an edit to the page in question) and I have interacted since I first major edits to the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor page two years ago. We even both edited the Muzaffarabad page within a few hours of one-another just yesterday on July 5.

He/she and I have frequently disagreed with each other, but we remain cordial and even occasionally compliment each other's edits. Perhaps you saw how he/she and I interacted on the Taxila talk page - which you were a part of too before, ostensibly at random, you noted my edits on the Lahore page. Kautilya3 even sent me a "Thanks" just today. I should return the favor more often too. But I digress: what I did was not harassment at all, and I'd appreciate if you stop making-up such serious accusations against me.

And since when does someone have to edit a board previously in order to join in at this time?Willard84 (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, friends. I think both of you need to calm down and take a break from the disputes. Wait for other editors to join in and give their input. I will make some comments at the Talk:Godhra train burning page soon. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can reply to the report: User:Willard84 reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: ) Capitals00 (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll apparently be back in a few days. Take note that blocks are for technical violations, and are not a determination of right vs wrong. See ya then!Willard84 (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you enable email, I have something for you Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to do that... But I'd be more than happy to if you could guide me. I'll be stepping out for a bit to go do a case, but will be back later this evening.Willard84 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy enough, go into your preferences and add it there. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've enabled it Willard84 (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You got mail, Darkness Shines (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: hi, could you comment about my complaint against user User:Capitals00 that was made in the comment section? It went completely unremarked; I understand I was blocked, but what about all that stuff I typed? I think I made a pretty good case that what Capitals00 did in particular was inappropriate. Was that forum only for 3RR complaints? Is there another noticeboard I should file under when the block against me is lifted for someone imposing his POV by deviating from Wikipedia guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source? He came up with several criteria which he himself made up. I'm still very interested in seeing what can be done about that. Willard84 (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted four times, and the other parties at most two each. Whether something is a reliable source needs to be worked out by agreement on the talk page. If you think his source was not reliable, you can ask at WP:RSN. From hrw.org, we learn that "The case against those who attacked the train in Godhra resulted in 31 convictions and 62 acquittals." This would imply that an Indian court opinion should be available on what really happened in Godhra. The press must have covered this court decision. Most likely, some mainstream US or British newspapers would have written about it, so there should not be a need to scoop up reports from less widely known or potentially partisan sources. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]