User talk:MythoEditor

MythoEditor, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi MythoEditor!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2013 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MythoEditor reported by User:GB fan (Result: ). Thank you. GB fan 11:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:38, 16 December 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

You let people insert articles which have unreliable sources and no academic sources and you punish me. Unblock me right now and do the right thing. And if you have any shame you should request someone to block you.

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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:42, 16 December 2013 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The article Ashok Sundari doesn't contain any reliable sources. The information provided by these sources is wrong. WP:RS says that a scholary edit should have a scholarly consensus that is many scholars should agree in that statement not just a single one. Also one source contains actually an opinion of the mythologist Devdutt Patnaik. Opinions are not always reliable plus we cannot confirm something on basis of opinion that too of a single scholar. I just followed the procedure. That's the reason I kept deleting those sources. Also since this renders the entire article sourceless I removed some of the information which was earlier proved wrong. Even though I might be correct I realise that instead of reverting the same edit made by multiple users I should have either reported this to an administrator or nominate it to Articles for deletion where a consensus could be reached by involved and other uninvolved users. I agree I crossed my limit. I actually thought that I was not actually indulging in edit warring since I thought that I hadn't reverted the same edit of the same user more than 3 times in 24 hours. I was wrong though. But still I realise even if I had not known the policy I did the wrong thing by reverting edits of multiple users. After thinking it through I have realised my mistake. Since the users also kept reverting my edits which was actually my fault I became angry and started acting rashly without giving any prior thought to my actions. I forgot that more than reliable or scholary sources cooperation and respect was the foremost policy of Wikipedia. I also seriously misbehaved with the administrator who had blocked me. This block actually proved helpful since after taking some time off from Wikipedia I realised that my actions were irresponsible. My behaviour was my mistake and I exceeded my limit. I sincerely apologize to you all for my behaviour and irresponsible actions. I request you take my apology into consideration and to forgive me for my irresponsible behavior. I have learned my mistake and I promise I will never act in such a way and will be careful to ensure that I first myself do not break any guidelines of Wikipedia. I sincerely apologize to you and request you to unblock me by taking my apology into consideration. If you think that I should be blocked then I understand the reason behind it. Thank you.

Decline reason:

To give you the chance to start a new one, per below comment. — Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2013 (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.

As for the article i will propose it for deletion and hold a consensus on it. I'm quiet sure like the last time the consensus will be in favor of deletion. MythoEditor (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and then go back and modify your unblock request because as it stands right now it will be declined. GB fan 13:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did the decline reason meant Daniel Case. I couldn't understand what you said. Can you please elaborate further? Which comment are you talking about? I only said the sources of the article seem unreliable to me and I think taking that into consideration the article should be nominated for deletion. Whatever the consensus on this issue I will accept it. Isn't that the best way to solve a dispute by discussion and consensus. MythoEditor (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to GB fan's comment above. Go to the link s/he gave and consider it in writing a new unblock request. Daniel Case (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, there is a misunderstanding here. The comment I placed above was for MythoEditor's original unblock request. Mytheditor then placed their new unblock request directly under their old and instead of at the bottom of the page. The block has expired now so it is a moot point. GB fan 14:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also when I said "like last time" the article was previously nominated for deletion a year ago and the consensus voted in favor of deleting it. MythoEditor (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andhaka, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Devas and Harivamsa Purana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andhaka, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mandara and Madara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vijaya (bow), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suta. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on abhimanyu

I see you rvrt my edits in the page Abhimanyu. The Sanskrit names are used for every purana character in wikipedia. But name parikshita is a sanskrit name which is not commonly used. But Arjuna, Krishna and yudhistira are different. Also the name of the article is parikshit itself So I don't find any reason to rvrt my edit. I didn't engaged in an edit war and I am just trying to improve the content. Please don't rvrt again - Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ugrasena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uttara. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Narendra Modi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to push ideas or launch attacks, particularly on people. I highly recommend stopping. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SuperHamster The hate-monger RSS are the ones who should be completely banned everywhere. I am not launching any attacks on anyone. I am spreading the truth. Modi does not stop the RSS because he himself was their member and himself has a communal mindset. MythoEditor (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to spread whatever message you want, it's an encyclopedia. Not really sure how calling someone a dog isn't an attack either. I don't think much else has to be said and will leave it at that. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SuperHamster Can't expect anything else from you slaves of the government. What are you so proud of this PM anyway? (Redacted) I feel sick of calling him my country's Prime Minister. (Redacted) MythoEditor (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really proud of him in particular...I live in a small suburban town in Ohio. But take your issues elsewhere, because they won't get anywhere here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Yunshui No please don't block me. Please I was only trying to spread the truth. MythoEditor (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not interested in your version of the truth. This is not a venue in which to right great wrongs, nor a soapbox for your political opinions. More importantly, attacking living individuals is a violation of our biographies policy, and personal attacks directed at other editors are unacceptable. As long as it is your intent to pursue your own personal crusade on Wikipedia, you will remain blocked. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui Please I'm sorry. I won't attack anyone ever again I promise. I'll remain well-behaved and a constructive editor from now on completely. I will not make any more destructive edits ever I promise. Please unblock me I request you humbly. I sincerely apologise to you and everyone else. MythoEditor (talk) 07:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last time you were blocked, you said: "I sincerely apologize to you all for my behaviour and irresponsible actions ... I have learned my mistake ... and will be careful to ensure that I first myself do not break any guidelines of Wikipedia." Your history of belligerent behaviour followed by swift and hyperbolic recanting does not convince me of the sincerity of your request, especially since less than twenty minutes earlier you were hurling baseless accusations and abuse at other editors. If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to file an unblock request in line with the guidance at the appeals guide, and have it reviewed and accepted by another administrator. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]