User talk:Kizznyc
March 2018
[edit]
Hello, I'm Utcursch. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Khalji dynasty, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. utcursch | talk 14:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Dakhini
[edit]Hi and thank you for your contributions to Dakhini. I've reverted some of them: the "Legend" section is intriguing and very well written, but by its vary nature it's not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Have you thought of publishing it in a magazine or in a blog?
Aside from this section, I've reverted some other recent additions to this article because they were unsourced. Feel free to reinstate them citing a reliable source. Many thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
March 2018
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Karnataka, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —Gazoth (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Karnataka. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Warning for repeated addition of insufficiently/improperly sourced material (blogs are not reliable sources!). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Thomas.W can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Kizzny. I appreciate you feel strongly about your subject, and that's not usually a bad thing, but I must strongly advise you against comments such as this, which not only verge on personal attacks, but also harassment, as it seems you are basically advocating that multiple editors gang up on another. The best thing to do in your current situation is present your requested edits at the article talk page and reach a consensus among knowledgeable editors as to its inclusion. But do try and avoid personalising the issues. Many thanks! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 11:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
ANI-notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
March 2018
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Unblock
[edit]I've researched and toiled and from a tiny phone paid for internet so that I could establish the true facts.
I admit I have made mistakes but those cannot be used as excuse to revert sound articles with valid references.
I've read the rules carefully and make sure this will not happen in future and I will discuss on talk page of article before coming to consensus. Kizznyc (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Kizznyc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #21022 was submitted on Mar 27, 2018 18:48:27. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note to admin reviewing UTRS-appeal: This thread on WP:ANI is of relevance when judging the case. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Have you actually read the rules? Because if you did you would know that UTRS is not the way you should be asking for an unblock. --Tarage (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
How did you even do that
[edit]This is nothing but targetting. I'm pretty sure admin sees it. But pressing the matter ensure he sees only your version.
I'm all for truth but not blurred lines...
Communicate and acknowledge instead of pissing contest. Kizznyc (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Alarm
[edit]Last time I checked Wikipedia page, it said undivided India.
Now as re election nears the search redirects to Akhand Bharat which is unconstitutional.
Fringe Kizznyc (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Before you get too worked up here: Wikipedia is located in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States, not the laws, or the constitution, of India. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Thomas provide reference
[edit]Since it is a fact finding mission need references which you completely seem to disregard unless its blogs.
And your warning was unwarranted.
Mind you the first one was not a blog under karnataka which to claim as repeat offender.
You seem to be extremist headed for hell but that's just a fact not personal.
The edit you made I agree but the warning was uncalled for, as for the first edit it is to be inferred that Urdu is actually not Urdu but Dakhini thus all stats are of Dakhini and since then I've provided multiple sound references and some to you as well WHICH YOU JUST REFUSE TO READ OR DISCUSS. BUT ARE HAPPY TO REVERT WITH A BLIND EYE.
Like how you did with Deccan Film Industry.
It is not fringe.
A film industry cannot be one of dialects in which case it would have remained under Hindi-Urdu bollywood industry.
Dakhini is the parent of these languages as I've established and these were not dialects but parts of dakhini which evolved into their own languages.
As for you monitoring my page I see that your alarm bells ring and a decade of presence on wiki is at risk so I understand totally you will take any ugly method to prevent the truth Kizznyc (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- My only involvement with you prior to your repeated posts on my talk page today has been reverting two edits of yours on 25 March, one sourced only to a blog, and the other not sourced at all. All of the other edits are things you should have worked out on the talk page of each article, with the editors there, not on my talk page, and attacking me, as you did, for whatever conflicts you've had with other editors here was totally unwarranted. And the last comment of yours is outright silly. End of discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Unblock proper method see below
[edit]
Kizznyc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Although I admit to harassment I also state that racial discrimination is not warranted towards my edits. And I've amicably tried to discuss a solution with provision of links and references which a particular reverter refuses to see and he issued a warning needlessly as the first edit was wrongly reverted since which I have provided to the discriminator factually sound references according to wiki guidelines. The discriminator refuses to acknowledge or discuss these new possible citations and wishes to keep reverting and eventually block a honest man's work of sweat and toil. Also another user reverted a perfectly fine referenced edit just to teach a lesson like a judge of court would and this is used against me as fringe when I have clearly provided citations. Since Wikipedia is a fact finding mission encyclopaedia such careless action without proper reason is unwarranted Thus my frustrations I could have edited again but I decided to reach a solution before doing so since some user was bent of blurring facts This block is but bullying but a warning would have sufficed like some advised me on my talk page and I heeded said advise and thus created talk on pages I wish to edit which have since also been targeted and removed thus creating conflict
Decline reason:
This is a passive-aggressive unblock request. See WP:NOTTHEM. Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Human Error
[edit]It would seem that you might have not seen the links below provide as reference.
I'm not sure whether the sentence has to be highlighted or just the citation given at the end of it.
In college I usually don't need to do either as I just need to put them at the end of the work.
Someone please redirect me to gain some clarity in this.
Because referring to my edit of Deccani Film Industry main article, from my references it is clear that what I did is not fringe as the articles clearly state Dakhini language NOT dialect. Although error from my side would be not giving the same reference agian. But that is just robotic anyone can see from the reference just a few sentences below that my minor edit was encyclopedic Kizznyc (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Just a note to the owner of this account. Please keep in mind, you are blocked from editing. This entire section is in violation of your block. The only thing you can use your talk page for while blocked is to request an unblock, and you should carefully read and follow the instructions for that. You are very close to having your talk page access revoked too. John from Idegon (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Unblock Request Correction
[edit]Kizznyc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The reason from my unblock as I read from ANI page INDEFFED for NOTHERE. From all my work and discussion, it is clear that I'm here to build encyclopedia and that is my intent. The entire disagreement and thereafter accepted harassment by me started because I took the wrong place to discuss page edits by using a particular usertalk of someone who had reverted my edit. My previous edits have been encyclopaedic and accepted with a few changes and as such the last unblock request was not accepted by a user who has previous conflict activity with me. This user has also reverted my latest edit solely on bias and has given no reason as the admin could easily see. Thus I would recommend for a fair process where an uninvolved admin reviews the account. The reason for unblock has been indeffed for NOTHERE and I've cleary not done that as most of my edits have proper references and citations and although I do admit to a few human errors I've only learnt from them and would like to keep continuing building Wikipedia with the updated and proper facts. Thank you
Decline reason:
This is not an accurate description. The consensus at WP:ANI is that the block is valid, your behaviour has been inappropriate (and indeed, you've continued that here, after being blocked), and your edits were often completely inappropriate. You clearly don't see the problem. I can't tell if that's because you are deliberately trolling us, as several people believe, or if you are just too caught up in things. Either way, I can't unblock you because there's no chance your behaviour would be significantly different, if unblocked. Yamla (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
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.
Not a Troll, Only here to contribute facts
[edit]Kizznyc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It clearly seems that from the previous reject that I've been judged fair. I also admit that I've continued the conflict conversation with a user here but I've been amicable and also unaware that while blocked I couldn't put any other discussion on my talk page like a user pointed out. I'm not here to troll and only on a fact finding mission and contributing that to the encyclopaedia. I'm new to Wikipedia and on a learning curve and I do admit that I took out anger on a particular user but that was only triggered because of the unwarranted warning I recieved which I felt was completed unnecessary at the time for "repeating" mistakes which I cleary have not done.
Since my edits other users have clearly read my articles and corrected the Dakhini, Dakhini film industry, hyderabadi Urdu, and Karnataka pages accordingly as all I gave was the facts albeit made some mistakes of Wikipedia guidelines while providing them.
All I expected from the reverter who sent me warning was to come to an amicable solution. Also the reverter could have advised that his talk page was not the right place for the discussion. But encouraged by his previous discussion of Hungary with another user, I might have erred and wrongly started a conversation there which the admin will clearly note was amicable at first with clear intent of a solution to fact finding. This is where the entire conflict started.
I am here to contribute to Wikipedia facts as I do in my offline life as a research student. The harrassment of the user I did was only a one time thing and I have again and again stated that I admit to that mistake and would never commit it again
Hoping I can continue to contribute and good work is done on Wikipedia
Regards
Decline reason:
You have been amicable? "You seem to be extremist headed for hell but that's just a fact not personal." I don't think a collaborative environment like Wikipedia suits you. Huon (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
Kizznyc (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- I should add that the comment I highlighted in declining the unblock request was not the only reason. There's also the POV-pushing, the ongoing use of unreliable sources, the misrepresentation of the more reliable sources and so on. I don't see any indication that any of that would change if the user were unblocked. Huon (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Unblock Please
[edit]Kizznyc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Recently my Wikipedia contributions have led to a lot of awareness of people recognising the Deccani Language and culture.
If I commited any mistake a year back i apologise.
I was not here to be personally attacked by one particular mod but I understand how abuse works now and I will try to stick to my factual work and keep quiet.
The fact that I'm still sticking to this account should been seen as good faith.
Please my only interest is to contribute facts. I will not indulge in stepping up and voicing about others abusing their powers here towards me ever again. I will work with faith and toil of facts and facts alone and silently tread on Kizznyc (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That is quite enough. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
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.
"If I commited any mistake a year back i apologise." No, you'll need to do much, much better than that. Everything about this unblock request screams that it is time to revoke talk page access from you, because you clearly don't get it. --Yamla (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Which point in particular is being referred to from the disruptive hyperlink? I'd say social skills could have been an issue a year back.
Most of my edits have been verified and build upon as reliable encyclopaedic content.
Could you elaborate a bit further instead of inciting a urge to block my talk page?
I'm trying here but you guys don't exactly elaborate. I could just hax stuff up and contribute new account anyway, but I'm not doing do. Since I want to do it the right way as per Wikipedia, I won't take that method.
How about unblocking to see what is being done this time. If errors are made discussion will be done prior to retry of edit. Thus if still violating Wikipedia after this policy then I'd agree block was valid.