User talk:Adam4math

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please note that all articles that cover anything related to India are covered by the ARBIPA sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Gipmochi. 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Doklam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring and consensus

You have been warned about edit-warring once already, but let me explain the problem again in a different way. Wikipedia is governed by consensus. If you make additions to an article, and those additions are removed by multiple people for policy-based reasons, you do not have consensus for your edits; you should therefore stop adding the content, and instead discuss the issue on the talk page. If you continue to edit-war, you will end up blocked sooner rather than later. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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. regentspark (comment) 16:21, 17 August 2017 (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).

Adam4math (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Most sources used in 2017_China–India_border_standoff, Doklam, Gipmochi can be traced back to India, which per se is not bad if used correctly. But they have been used to give a biased exposition. I have been trying to improve on these articles by using the neutral point of view, such as modifying what were stated as truths to who made those statements and/or pointing out the sources, adding missing or balancing references, adding balancing analyses by other top Indian experts (they love their country and are no less patriotic) or top third-party world experts that are different from the Indian nationalistic narratives on these topics. However, my edits were repeatedly removed or reverted. I twice used the undo function (I never used it three times in one day). Then I am blocked. I think ARBIPA sanctions is a good starting policy. However, I believe wikipedia should to go one step further by blocking all nationalistic Indian editors from editing these topics, and only allow third parties to edit them, so that impartial and objective expositions can be reached without disruption. I am new to editing wiki-articles, and still have not figured out how to communicate with other wiki-editors, or how to respond to them. Adam4math (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the versions of these three wiki-articles before and after my edits were reverted, hope decision maker(s) can see how disruptive editors from India are. Adam4math (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring; you will need to address that, and only that, in any unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:10, 18 August 2017 (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.

Edits to the Doklam page

Adam4maath, I have asked you to explain at Talk:Doklam#UNDUE_commentaries, how you decided which commentaries should be included. You did not respond. The kind of issues you mention here should have been discussed on the article talk page.

The Doklam page did not have any commentaries before you started adding them. It needs to be decided by WP:CONSENSUS, which commentaries should be added or whether any should be added at all. Without engaging in discussion, you continued to add the same content to other pages.

Finally, there is nothing in Wikipedia's reliable source policy that allows us to comment upon national or ethnic origins of sources. We can only make judgements based on upon where the views are published and how reliable those venues are. Your attempt to paint such and such a commentator as of "Indian origin" and smear their views with your WP:OR is not permissible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kautilya3, I'm sorry if what I said hurt your feelings. But I am sure you mis-understood me when you mention about national or ethnic origins of sources that I have not intention to even imply. What I mean is that on any sensitive and controversial issue involving two parties, information from only one side is biased. Put it this way: if you have a case in court, you cannot be your own judge; what is fair in court is to let each side states its case. That's why I think wiki's ARBIPA sanctions should go one step further: blocking edits from the concerned countries and let third party edit, so that wikipedia's operations do not get disrupted. This has nothing to do with discriminating sources according to national or ethnic origins.

You stated that Doklam page did not have any commentaries before I started. On that page, the first commentary date is 15:06, 6 July 2017, before I became a wiki editor. On the used of the word "intrusion", I modified it to reflect which source by wikipedia policy of using neutral language. Wiki editors are not judges, they are reporters. The source on the opposite side will have a totally different description of the same action. My analogy on court case applies here again. About consensus on Doklam related matters, I'm afraid anything that is true but not favorable to India will be removed. (Read through the revisions you'll see what I mean.) On the other hand, biased opinions on China will stay because English is not the language in China, and , as I just found, wikipedia is blocked therein [[1]].

Talk:Doklam#UNDUE_commentaries: Are exceptional qualifications of those experts not enough? Above all, are they not telling the most important and highly needed truth?

Being not good with computer, I did not know to respond to wiki editors until now. Hope my message will reach you. Adam4math (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam4math, Thank you for the conciliatory tone of your message. Unfortunately, that by iteself does not resolve the issues.

You currently misunderstand how Wikipedia works. The only way to address that it is to gain a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies explained in WP:RS and WP:NPOV. When you dispute issues, you need to dispute them based on those policies, not based on policies of your own making. When users are blocked, they are well-advised to study the policies so that they will not run into the same problems again. So you really need to do that now. I will explain in my next message how the edit you cited above violates Wikipedia policies. Hopefully, that will help you in understanding Wikipedia policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, I understand WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Issues related to Doklam is controversial, basically between India and China since Bhutanese rulers are being held hijacked by India. The New York Times (nytimes) reported on AUG. 15, 2017 that the general Bhutanese public do not want India to get involved. Mr. Wangcha Sangey who was interviewed by nytimes, has this to say on his blogger page: "In 1962 during Sino- India war, the 3rd King of Bhutan granted safe passage to Indian soldiers fleeing Arunachal through Eastern Bhutan to India only after the soldiers surrendered their rifles at Tashigang Dzong. This demonstrates that Bhutan does not welcome armed combat troops even that of India."

See other articles related to current standoff by hims at [[2]]

The nytimes has been traditionally negative on reporting basically everything about China, but it did not report China unfavorably for the current Doklam standoff. India's behaviors have to be beyond egregious for this to happen. You seem to acquiesce you are from India. So the analogy I made about court case before would apply to you. Third party sees the issue more clearly than both India and China. I have nothing against Indians, and I have always appreciated Indian culture and great achievements in mathematics, and thought they are traditionally peaceful and peace loving people. When I read online profuse aggressive and racist comments by Indians and their media, I'm appalled and concerned. These smear India and Indians' image. I learned that the general Chinese public do not know much about modern India and most people did not even know there was a 1962 conflict with India, let alone viewing India as an enemy, though they consider the US as THE rival. However, the Indians view China as the main enemy and want to "nuke China", "nuke Beijing, Shanghai, Canton", "liberate Tibet", claiming that India is ready for a "two-and-a-half fronts war", and numerous obscene words that are inappropriate to quote here, etc, etc. I have read that India's nuke bomb program is aimed at China. What do Indians expect China to do? Maxwell gave an accurate depiction of the current situation, but the wiki articles on Doklam and related issues are being hi-jacked by the Indians, just as Bhutan is, and truth gets removed as soon as it appears in these articles.

Wikipedia does not want its pages to become ethnic battle grounds. So they have especially prohibited Indian and Pakistani editors from talking about their own ethnicity or each other's ethnicity. That prescription would be good for the Chinese editors also to accept and abide by.

The Indians do not view China as an "enemy". Rather they view it as a threat. That is because China invaded India in 1962. Indians did not expect China to invade and they were unprepared. So they ended up with a humiliating defeat. They believe that China will again invade when an opportunity presents itself. It is up to China to decide whether it wants to prove them right or wrong. But next time India will not be unprepared.

I believe Neville Maxwell has provided a pro-China view in his book, and people will generally assume that anything he says now will be similarly pro-China. But his view is one among many. It does not override the others. In the end, China needs to negotiate with Bhutan (and India because it is a matter of trijunction) and come to an agreement. Until that happens, Doklam is disputed territory as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The Bhutanese are being very tight-lipped for understandable reasons, whereas China is talking a lot (in public). But just talking a lot doesn't make the problem disappear. They will need to negotiate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with your edit:

The source that was in the article originally is by Brian Benedictus, a Washington-based forein policy analyst that specializes in East Asia, and published in The Diplomat, an international political affairs magazine that specializes in Asian affairs, in 2014. (All three facts are important: author, venue and the date). This is a reliable source (RS) according to Wikipedia criteria, and whatever is said in the source can be stated as fact. A dispute arises only if it is contradicted by another reliable source of equal or better standing. You have not provided any such source. So you cannot modify it.
You added the words "Citing India sources, The Diplomat states that.... This amounts to stating facts as opinions, and it is against Wikipedia policy WP:YESPOV.
The word "intrusion" appeared in my effort to summarise the source. If you believe that it is unreasonable, you can discuss it on the article talk page, and we can come to an agreement. But the fact is that what is described in the RS does amounts to "intrusion".
You added text stating that Chinese government maintains..., and you added this before any of the 1966 affair was discussed. This represents your POV that the Chinese government's view should take priority. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot represent such a POV. The Chinese government is not a reliable source for anything other than its own view.
Governments in general are not reliable sources for anything except their own views. In order to even mention those views, we need WP:SECONDARY sources that cite or discuss them. The 1966 Bhutanese view has been mentioned in multiple secondary sources. But no Chinese view of any kind from that time period has been mentioned anywhere. So, your insertion amounts to WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. In other words, you are trying to concoct a story of your own which does not appear in reliable sources.
So all the editing that you have done to the 1966 affair is against Wikipedia policy. The ARBIPA sanctions mean that, if you continue to insist on doing such edits, you will eventually be blocked.
I will not get into a detailed discussion regarding the Commentaries here because it should happen on the article talk page. But the issue with them as what I described earlier. There are hundreds of commentaries on the Doklam standoff. How do you decide which commentaries to include and which to exclude? You say they have "exceptional qualifications". But so do many others that you have excluded. Moreover, you have not even stated what qualifications you have in mind. Stobdan in a former Indian ambassador. But there are several other former ambassadors that have also written views. Former Foreign Secretaries of the Indian government have also written, who rank higher than ambassadors. I am personally not convinced that Stobdan is an expert on this subject because he did not even know where Doklam was, and he cites a Bhutanese blogger who didn't know where Doklam was either. It is quite a ridiculous situation if you think about it. Once again, these kind of issues need to be discussed on the article talk page. You cannot act as if you know the best and everybody must accept your judgements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About "intrusion" and related, they are being stated as truth. Again, this is an controversial issue between two parties, India and China; what one side considers as truth maybe considered complete absurdity by the other party. You use various wiki policies to justify your truth. On the other hand, when I put statements that may be considered false by the other side, I mention who said it and the source, so that the reader himself can decide if it is true or false. Who is Brian Benedictus? How do his qualification compare with the famous Neville Maxwell and the well-known Dr. Manoj Joshi? I do not mean to debase Benedictus by our discussion of Doklam.

In stating "The Diplomat has commented that ... ", it will make readers believe this is the opinion of The Diplomat. However, this is not true. If I take out a statement from the article [[3]], can I say it is what The Diplomat said? On controversial issues, you needed to specify who or which side said it to comply with WP:NPOV.

I do not want to argue with you about other assertions you made about me here. I am sorry to say that none of them is true. You are a party in the Doklam issue and you are biased, just as China would be when it portrays its case. But an educated third party outside can tell what is truly going on. Indians hijacking both Bhutan and wiki articles related to Doklam need to stop. Adam4math (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam4math, your user name suggests that you are mathematician. Please try to bring to the discussion the same degree of rigour you apply to mathematics.

We don't worry about who is more famous and who is less famous in figuring out RS. Brian Benedictus is a WP:THIRDPARTY. His article was published in a WP:THIRDPARTY venue, an international magazine that caters to all countries, including China. (This is the best kind of source one can hope to get for current affairs, because peer-reviewed publications become available only after several years.) The date of the publication of this article was well before the present dispute. So it wasn't aimed at supporting one side or the other. Neville Maxwell, on the other hand, is a notable intellectual. His views can be stated with attribution. But they can be stated as fact only if they meet the RS criteria, in this case, they need to be published THIRDPARTY venue. South China Morning Post is not a THIRDPARTY venue. Notability and reliability are different concepts, and they are determined by different criteria.

The statement attributed to The Diplomat was written by an editor of the magazine, a permanent employee, whose views can be taken to be the views of the magazine. For guest columnists, the attribution would be to the columnists.

You say I am "using" Wikipedia policies. Of course I am. Wikipedia is meant to be written using Wikipedia policies. If you don't want to use the Wikipedia policies, then Wikipedia is not meant for you. You need to go elsewhere. I hope that won't be the case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate branding of sources

Hi Adam4math, I am surprised that, after all the discussion we had above, you have resorted to branding sources in this fashion. I would advise you to undo this as soon as possible.

If you have any sources that contradict the information given by these sources, please feel free to raise them on the talk page. If you have any issues with the reliability of any of the sources, you are free to bring them up too. But you cannot brand sources with nationalities or ethnicities, based on your own WP:OR.

Pinging RegentsPark for additional advice. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not bring nationalities or ethnicities into the article, you charged me with that before and I thought we clarified that. What I did was to educate the reader that this is the view of only one side.

Again: This is a disputed issue. I have talked to you several times that on disputed issues between two parties, just as in court cases, you cannot make arguments from only one side as truth to mislead the reader. Wikipedia is not the place to make one sided narratives about disputed issues. Adam4math (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam4math, you can't define sources as being from one side or the other based on the country of origin (re your edit summary in the link provided by Kautilya3). Please stop doing that and consider yourself warned. --regentspark (comment) 02:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, I could see you are an Administrator and editor in India and therefore represent the same party in the dispute on Doklam as Kautilya3, so I understand you need to be on India's side as he is. As a third party, my clarifying whose position it is and clearly specifying the sources of the narratives at [[4]] is what an impartial judge should do. At the moment you editors and Administrators in India (as a party in the dispute) can work in concert to control all pages related to Doklam and prevent truth being told. Adam4math (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was not clear enough. You cannot label sources as being one sided based on the country of origin. Nor can you ascribe biases to people depending on what you think their nationality is. I see you're doing a lot of that so consider this a second warning. If you think your content is worthy of inclusion, then provide reliable sources that back up whatever you want to include. If that doesn't work, you can resort to dispute resolution. But, do not ascribe motives and biases to other editors and do not label editors as belonging to this nationality or that nationality. --regentspark (comment) 19:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark: Once again, subtitle at [[5]] is not about nationality, but about specifying the position of a party (your party in this case) in the dispute on Doklam. Similarly, in these talk messages to you and Kautilya3, I'm not talking about editors from your side in the dispute in regards to your nationality, but as representing India as a party in the dispute. If I write about the position or opinion of another party, I also explicitly state the origin of that party's sources without prejudice on the other party's nationality. Isn't the new section title true at [[6]]? If it is true, you should be proud that your party is mentioned in the title, and not charge me with alluding to nationality. Anyone can see the title is not about nationality.

Here is a quote from [[7]]

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

You are insisting on doing exactly what this quote forbids.

You could have wisely recused yourself at 16:21, 17 August 2017 because of conflict of interest when you blocked me for what editors in you party (India) called "edit warring". This is what a judge in an impartial court in a democratic society would do, but you did not. I never did three reverts on any article, but you imposed block on me because of your bias and interest in the matter, representing India as a party in the matter. On the other hand, I'm a 3rd party interested only in truth - math like truth. Adam4math (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Doklam. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. If you have any issues with my conduct, you need to raise them on my talk page or at WP:ANI, not on article talk pages. And, you also need to maintain politeness. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic: Revealing you are engaging edit war and bullying others and hide the warnings is personal attack, and you accusing (on the article talk page) other's valid concerns to be edit war is not.

Adam4math (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It is you, Kautilya3, who has been persistently disruptive and engaging in edit warring. You are abusing Wikipedia's reliable sources and others policies to bully and confuse others, like you tried them on me. I have studied the history of your interactions with other wiki editors on other controversial topics and have found that this a pattern of your behavior. You need stopping doing all these." [8] That is a personal attack. If you want to make any allegations, you need to do with evidence and at the proper place.

Look, I have been patiently trying to reason with you, assuming that you are a new user and gradually you will learn how to work with its policies. But if start waging a personal vendetta against me all over Wikipedia, there will be no more reasoning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Please do not make unexplained blanking of the page, as you did in here. Thank you. Alex Shih ^Talk 15:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex Shih, I'm sorry to see so many differences after my edits, but I only added the following responses to GUtt01 and EdJohnston

Hi, GUtt01: Thanks for your comments. I admit I'm new to wiki editing, but the chaos and disruptions on editing disputed issue completely caught me off guard. That made me to think of the situation in a Court, in which disputed issues can be handled in a orderly and lawful manner. I'm suggesting that kind of a system/policy be adapted. This has nothing to do with nationalities, but it is about parties in disputed issues should not be judges, and I suggested blocking editors IN BOTH China and India (probably Bhutan too since it is also a party) not to prejudice any side. I did not suggest to ban disputed parties from presenting their cases, but suggested in part (2) to "Create a page that allows the disputed parties to submit their supporting documents", just as in a Court that allows disputed parties to file briefs but not to write decisions or Court orders, because that is the job of the judge(s).

Wikipedia currently has ARBIPA sanctions policy in place. This policy authorizes discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan because of hotly disputed issues regarding these three countries. This policy is not interpreted to be discrimination about nationalities. The policy/system I'm suggesting for all disputes seems to be better since it is really about parties in disputes, not about specific countries, though I urged start with such a system on the dispute on Doklam. Adam4math (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC

EdJohnston: I appreciate you spending time looking into this. How do I suggest Wikipedia policy change? I would like to have my policy suggestion to reach all Administrators and (in the spirit of Wikipedia) preferable the entire Wikipedia community for consideration. Thank you in advance for your advice. Adam4math (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Today, I did not add any other texts beside the above. I'd appreciate it if you would kindly explain why by adding the responses above, so many other texts got added. Does it mean that I should have responded yesterday? Thanks. Adam4math (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Adam4math. To change Wikipedia policy, see WP:VPP. But you seem to have messed up the AN3 noticeboard by ignoring edit conflicts. To avoid this in future, try to keep your edit window open for only a short time before you do a save. And if you get an edit conflict message, copy your new text somewhere on your own computer and cancel your edit. Refresh the noticeboard, then attempt to redo your edit from scratch. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the instruction EdJohnston! I went to the link to noticeboard [[9]] by clicking the message alert from you in my account. I did pay attention to warning of edit conflicts after spending almost two hours composing the responses to GUtt01 and you (because the coding symbols confuse me and are hard on my vision). So I brought up the above link again and copy-pasted what I composed earlier (quicker this time) and did seem to go through without edit conflicts. But, sigh, I still messed up the notice board.

Which link should I use in order to write a reply on the noticeboard in the future? The link here [[10]] does not show the messages I wanted to reply to. Thanks. Adam4math (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam4math, to reduce the possibility of edit conflicts, please edit just the section you need to change. You should have an edit button for each section. If not, please let me know, and I can check if you need to fiddle with your preferences.

Despite all precautions, edit conflicts can sometimes occur. You need to make sure that you don't overwrite other people's edits. Please see WP:Edit conflicts for how to handle the situation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kautilya3, thanks for suggesting to use "edit button for each section", which I did not and it caused/costed me un-neccessary confusion, strain and time. Adam4math (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. regentspark (comment) 21:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam4math, i've blocked you because of your persistence in attempting to ascribe "sides" to other editors (as in this edit). There are also competence issues that you need to address. You will need to come up with a clearly stated strategy to edit less disruptively if you want to be unblocked. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 21:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: he's block evading using an IP address 96.32.177.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now, see[11]. Since it's a static IP,[12] please block it for a longer period. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 08:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked now. If the IP returns in a different form, I'll semi-protect the page.--regentspark (comment) 12:50, 26 August 2017 (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).

Adam4math (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been trying for months to have my block removed by appealing to the Arbitration Committee. Today a member of the committee advised me to request block here first. My reasons for request to unblock are as follows. I was a new editor when I started editing Doklam, 2017 China–India border standoff, Gipmochi and related Wikipedia pages in August 2017. These pages are related to territorial dispute between India and China. Kautilya3, RegentsPark, MBlaze Lightning, Jasonprost and other editors and administrators in India who represent their country as a party in territorial dispute with China were making concerted effort to to control these pages, stamping down any effort by other editors who attempted to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia on pages related to the dispute. Despite of conflict of interest, RegentsPark working in concert with Kautilya3, MBlaze Lightning, Jasonprost [13][14] and other editors in India blocked me indefinitely on 25 August 2017 [15] after he first blocked me on 17 August 2017 because I tried to uphold Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV policy using common sense edits (called the fundamental principle above any policy) such as attributing sources in the related article [16][17]. He failed to follow the procedure in [18] and [19] to deal with what he accused me as disruptive editing. RegentsPark breached basic policy on biting new comer, and sided with his compatriot Indian editors to engage edit warring against me as a third party editor on articles related to the their country’s territorial dispute with China. Instead of recusing himself, RegentsPark repeatedly used poor judgment to block me. When Zanhe pointed out the bias on these pages, Kautilya3 threatened [20] to punish him/her the same way they did together with RegentsPark to me. As an experienced editor (unlike me), Zanhe posted the issue on the NPOV noticeboard [21]. After RegentsPark posted his expected support [22] for the position of his compatriot Kautilya3, as an involved administrator and editor, he deleted the opinion that is unfavorable to India’s position [23]. On this noticeboard, everyone (except Indian editors) agreed that sources from a country involved in territorial disputes are biased and need to be attributed, but RegentsPark had blocked me indefinitely for attributing the sources. I request an impartial administrator to unblock me because my attributing sources on articles related to territorial disputes cannot not constitute valid reasons to block me indefinitely: [24][25]. This matter should be handled by an administrator un-associated with India because it involves conduct of administrator and editors in India working in concert to bully other editors and control certain wiki pages in order to advocate their country’s position and seriously undermine the integrity and trustworthiness of Wikipedia. Adam4math (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wow. As an example of not getting it, this is pretty much textbook. Above, the blocking administrator commented specifically Adam4math, i've blocked you because of your persistence in attempting to ascribe "sides" to other editors.... What do you do in your unblock appeal? Base your entire reason for being unblocked on the fact that other editors are all on the same side, teamed up against you. It's clear that you have absolurtely no intent of addressing the issues behind this block, nor even that you are aware of them, so I'm revoking your access to this talkpage to save others from having to wade through any future pointless wall-of-text appeals. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:26, 29 November 2017 (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.