User talk:పగలబడి నవ్వుట

Hi పగలబడి నవ్వుట! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

04:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest message on my talk page. Like you, I thought we had finished our messaging. However, I must say that I am sorry for the poor wording of my last post to which you responded. I think I left the wrong impression. My thought was that you did "not assume" that I was involved in making the policy. But now that I see what I wrote, I realize it was poorly expressed and could even be interpreted differently. Please know that the last phrase was not intended in any sort of negative way but indeed was meant to say that you realized I was not involved with the policy making. I hope this will be able to end our exchanges on a positive note, as I think both of us have intended. Best regards for your further work on Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Donner60, you seem nice enough. But I'm going to be straight with you - you nor I, nor anyone really, are arbiters of what constitutes objectivity or "truth" for articles related to the history, culture and language of more than a billion people. I've read, with great sobriety, your deliberation on many questions in this regard and have found much of what you've written to be pedantic, patronizing and insufferable . So yeah. You do me no favors by being "conciliatory". పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in HAL Tejas. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Do not add Indian language scripts to the lead as it not allowed per MOS:INDICSCRIPT. —Gazoth (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, there is nothing "unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand" in using the Indian language native name for an Indian developed Indian plane. Please see the article on the J-20, where the article's name is written in Chinese as well as transliterated into pinyin. --పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

పగలబడి నవ్వుట, the policy is a result of a WikiProject-level consensus. If you wish to change it, you need to obtain a new consensus at WT:INB or at an even broader level, per WP:CONLEVEL. —Gazoth (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this. Thank you for pointing me in that direction. That said, I will continue to maintain the edits I've made until disciplinary action is taken against me by anyone because this is a bigoted and racist policy. Thanks. --పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at HAL Tejas. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block. Thank you. —Gazoth (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Funny One,
You are silly and laughable. Report me as much as you like. I will continue to make my edits and I WILL NOT SEEK CONSENSUS. You and your "democratic disseminators of information" didn't ask for consensus when it came to using Chinese language characters for warplanes developed by the People's Republic of China nor did you have such a discussion when it came to similar such designations for warplanes assembled by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, such as the JF-17. But, hey, you and your buddies thought it was open season on the world's largest democracy in the world, right? It's open season on us, huh? So let me be clear, because your aegis of objectivity does not intimidate me - WE SEE YOU FOR WHAT YOU ARE. To hell with your consensus. Ban me or whatever, I will continue to speak truth to the power of racists and bigots like you and your camp. "THANKS!" పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at HAL Tejas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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. BilCat (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Big Brother. Have fun being stupid and counterintuitive. పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I do try, but it's not easy being stupid in a world of smart people like you. Have a great life. - BilCat (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I will have a great life and I share the hope that your life is joyful, prosperous and meaningful too, friend. You can be as glib, non-plussed and as "too cool for the room" as you like - policies that stifle the expression of those languages spoken by people of color on Wikipedia are dehumanizing and toxic instances of racism. So, instead of posting sarcastic and "edgy" comments on my talk page, I would counsel you to exercise some introspection. Thanks. పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Why would I take counseling advice from someone who can't control his temper and outrage long enough to hold civil discussions about changing guidelines, and who has clearly stated they intended to disregard Wikipedia policies regarding edit warring? The thing you don't know is that many Wikipedia editors disagree with the MOS on many issue, but nevertheless abide by them for the sake of being civil. There are legitimate ways to get Wikipedia policies and guidelines changed, but you were so outraged you shot yourself in both feet and the head before giving those ways legitimate chance.

You make an interesting point that I hadn't previously considered - your uninformed and privileged opinions ought to have been evidence enough that any counsel from my end would not only be fruitless but would, more importantly, be degrading and beneath me. You use the shameless language of violence, of "shots" and "shooting of the limbs" to buttress, strangely enough, your confused argument for adherence to "guideline changes". And yet, despite your violent, uncivilized and contemptible rhetoric, you retain editorial privileges while mine remain revoked. And for what? BECAUSE I USED MODERN STANDARD HINDI TO DESIGNATE A PLANE MANUFACTURED IN INDIA. So let's be clear - you're an individual of "civility". I'm an individual of civil disobedience. --పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were also too outraged to investigate who implemented MOS:INDICSCRIPT and why. It was implemented by Wikipedia:WikiProject India, whose members are primarily Indian and people of Indian descent. I don't know the exact circumstances behind its implementation, but it was apparently implemented to prevent the incessant edit wars over which languages and scripts to use in articles about Indian topics that were disrupting these articles. Those disputes have not arisen over the use of other languages and scripts in articles related to China, Pakistan, et al, and that's why there's no corresponding guideline against using their languages and scripts. Perhaps in time, other users who can control themselves will be able to get the guidelines changed, but you won't be one of them unless you exercise some serious introspection yourself, and try to work within the system instead of against it. - BilCat (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Lord, I was "too outraged to investigate who implemented MOS:INDICSCRIPT", was I?. And goodness, me oh my, it was implemented by brown people like me, you say? Oh shame on me! I didn't know that, BilCat! I suppose I should retract everything I've said because all us brown folks think alike, don't we BilCat? Thank you so much for bringing that to my attention. I didn't realize I had stepped on too many toes and walked too swiftly through the tulips and beyond the boundaries of what the brothers and sisters of my homeland were limited to by people like you. Thank you for pointing me in the direction of "introspection", Mr. Gatekeeper. --పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. —Gazoth (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a dartboard with my photo on it, too? --పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ponyo, thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

పగలబడి నవ్వుట (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been prevented from publishing sanctioned, sourced and verifiable information. This is absolutely out of line from the principles of the free dissemination of objective information. But hey, it doesn't matter because I have a funny name and, Gods and Goddesses forbid, I'm willing to stand up for my People's self-esteem, right? And also, I really, really want whatever self-deputized arbiter of "objectivity and fairness" reading this to know - I don't recognize your authority to make a pronouncement on this. So...yeah. Have fun on your power trip, loser. పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Requests that contain personal attacks are not considered. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I will say that your record of personal attacks, combined with your statement above that you will not seek consensus, make it very unlikely you will be unblocked without a significant change in attitude and outlook. Wikipedia is not just about freely disseminating information, this is an encyclopedia where content is based on independent reliable sources. If you just want to distribute information, you can do that on social media. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here ! - FlightTime (open channel) 23:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your disciplinary authority and power are an illusion - you are not the arbiter of what constitutes a "signficant[ly] change[d] attitude", no matter what powers have been vested in you by Wikipedia. Thanks. పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, as I don't claim to be any sort of arbiter or authority figure, but if you want to be unblocked, you need to convince someone with the unblock button to do it. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You lay out the criteria for what constitutes the enterprise and mission of Wikipedia, as though you're qualified to make that claim. You then patronizingly imply that it is my attitude and outlook that preclude me from being unbanned, implying you know something about retributive procedure. Yours are not observations, they're opinions and they are opinions that justify censoring the agency people of color have to "reliably source" articles about their own history. You're not some objective observer above the fray - you are what's wrong with Wikipedia. Thanks. పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what color you are and it is of no particular relevance to me. However if you are just going to say that anyone who disagrees with you is doing so for racial reasons, and additionally refuse to take ownership of your own conduct and blame others, this is not the project for you. Good day. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's of no relevance to me that my people's color is of no relevance to you. Additionally, Wikipedia is a democratic project for the people, so keep your unlettered inclusion criteria for who should or should not be a contributor to yourself. Thanks. పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you are wrong about that. However, I see no further point in conversing with you. You are free to attempt to request unblock from someone else, but it will not succeed if the request is anything like your first. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A "democratic project" and a project "characterized as a democracy" are entirely unrelated and you've mischaracterized my perspective, as has seemed to have been your approach. I'm afraid you lack reading comprehension. But thankfully, we seem to agree on the futility of further dialogue - you are a pedantic and uninformed ass. --పగలబడి నవ్వుట (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]