User talk:Dopplegangman

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are a known user on Wikipedia with disruptive edits and a know sock puppet

get a job Dopplegangman (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Bhagavad Gita, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked from editing for two weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Personal attacks and harassment are not permitted on Wikipedia, and your combative behavior is way out of line. Cullen328 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here i accept what I said may have been out of line but I think the block time is too long for the small amount of things said as well as this I was not the one who instigated this as the other user who I was responding to called me incompetent or at least referred to it and if I am to be blocked for two weeks he should also have a blocked as well as he came at me first with the personal attacks Rosguill is the user ~

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:22, 9 January 2024 (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.

Dopplegangman (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, your edit to Bhagavad Gita was not competent. Mistaking the age of the oldest surviving manuscript with the very different date of composition is a serious error, and competence is necessary to edit such topics. Cullen328 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you don’t have the competence to have read my edit as I stated the oldest manuscript dates back then this would be evidence for it being made in the medieval era seems like you lack the competence to understand how these ideas overlap Dopplegangman (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the oldest surviving manuscript and the date of composition are two entirely unrelated matters. The fact that you seem not to understand this distinction is a serious problem. Cullen328 (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the ongoing discussion at WP:ANI, your block is now indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I wonder if talk page access should be revoked next considering he's accusing people of incompetence above for believing the fact that the Bhagavad Gita was not composed in medieval times. JM (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JM2023, I will make that decision about talk page access based on the editor's use of their talk page in the future, not in the past. You are free, of course, to ask another administrator to take a look. Dopplegangman, the purpose of your talk page access at this point is to discuss what you did wrong that led to this block, and to provide assurances that the misconduct will not happen again. If you harass or attack other editors again, I doubt that any administrator will be receptive to an unblock request. So speak carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t say that it was 100% composed in medieval times but that is is could be a reason for it date along with other explainatiosns due to the fact of it oldest surviving manuscript

pleaer read and try to understand what I say before making a comment on it Dopplegangman (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:LevivichI noticed you said I should be permanently banned due to the fact I was attacking other wiki user like

User:suthasianhistorian8i was merely showing this to prove he was disruptive I did not create this just showing it to prove disruptive edits Dopplegangman (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here I accept that I used personal attacks which I should not have and should not of said some of the people things I have said I also admit to edit warring but only in self defence as I had came to a consensus in the talk page as well as supplying a source.the claim for reltalitory filing is unjust as if one has a look into his archives husband past edits and ban history as well as being a suspected sockpuppet this would be a valid reason for a block.some edits I have made have been made to be seen as disruptive but this is due to me at the time either not understanding how to add a source or me misreading one.i do believe I have made goodbyes edits to a lot of wiki pages like on Sikhism guru gobind Singh Dasam and sarbloh Granth pages I do believe I will make good edits to Wikipedia in turbans future as I now have a better understanding on how to do things as well as no longer doing personal attacks I believe I will make a valued editor am do will consult the people in the future regarding my edits and for this I believe I should still be blocked from editing for some time for the personal attacks alleging someone has no life’s for spending their whole time on Wikipedia I believe I should be blocked for a week and then you will see the value of having me on Wikipedia Dopplegangman (talk)

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. This is the blocked User:KnownFactsChecker. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:17, 10 January 2024 (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.

Dopplegangman (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2024 (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 for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.