User talk:Qaayush529

Welcome!

Hi Qaayush529! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 19:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bombardment of Algiers (1683). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) You are the one who is removing perfectly sourced content disregarding it as not reliable, when it is the foremost OG source. I'm trying to add Jamieson statement as well Qaayush529 (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ignore the ongoing discussion on the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights

How is this image usable on Wikipedia from a copyright standpoint? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded this on Wikimedia commons citing it as my own work not mentioning the actual owner. So a editor removed it and asked to give representation to the actual owner(Since they have explicitly asked to mention the them whenever using it ) . So Now I uploaded it again with proper mention of original site/museum and source. Qaayush529 (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the photographer? Has the "owner" released the photograph under a CC license (any link?)? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Courcelles (talk Hey man can you tell me why I'm blocked. Stockpuppet report was concluded 2 days ago but I haven't seen it that time. Today I saw it, and presented evidences against the report in the reply section. You didn't even saw that. Plz take a look at that once. Qaayush529 (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qaayush529, if you wish to appeal your block you should use the unblock template. You can do this by copying the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} and replacing "Your reason here" with a shortened version of what you posted at the sockpuppet investigations page. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamy Jazz talk should i do this here only in my talk page by adding a new topic or at the talk page of the admin who blocked me Qaayush529 (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are only able to edit this page, so you should do it here on your talk page by adding a new topic. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:36, 28 June 2023 (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).

Qaayush529 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

stockpuppet report was concluded 2 days ago but I haven't seen it by that time. Today I saw it, and presented evidences against the report in the reply section. no admin saw that and blocked me nonetheless . going to present the evidence again . plz have look at it once . * Hey , I just came across this ongoing discussion of the stockpuppet and will like to defend myself against these claims . First of all examples are very deliberately chosen to show some kind of connection. 1) I added the Vedic term as it has been frazeir in his source ( which was cited) , this was also confirmed by extended moderator there (check the next edit) . And this is very common . I have made significant edits in the articles related to Ancient Indian education centers not just nalanda . Some of these include edits in the articles such like * Somapura mahavihara * mithila University * Sharada peeth * Taxila * Ancient Indian education sites If you look at the user Daayush he hasn't shown any interest in all of these. Op here has tried hard to portray as me adding hinduism in all of them there. But if you look at the edits , you will see most of them are actually adding associated figures with them . And all of them btw are provided with source. 2. Again this is deliberately picking a one example. The edit here is backed by a source and this is not the Only one .if you go through my edit history , you will notice I have done a great amount of edits in Indian history including mauryan empire , gupta empire , kushan emprie their culture , art and and many times I often have debates on the talk page of some like with user Patliputra. The edit coinciding with the edit done by user Daayush is just coincidence. daayush hasn't shown any interest in such a vide variety of topics. He was mostly POV pushing with no source backing up. * I have great interest in economics ( that's my professional job related to ). Me doing a edit in Great divergence article doesn't mean anything at all. I have done various edits on economic related articles in general which includes: economic history of dutch republic, wales, Britain and I'm soon going to add economic history of spain as well. Just because the other guy has done single edit on great divergence doesn't mean we are the same. 4. Again I have absolutely no reason to downplay mughal as well. But the economic report used there comes in my radar of specialization. The report by Maddison is not considered reliable at all by historians. There has also been a consensus of wikipedia which included users like fowler&fowler and johnbed to not use it in articles. The sheer amount of times that report has been used must be stopped. This shouldn't be a surprise as I have already made significant edits on economy related articles on other countries. 4. Really pity of you to include only the edit on battle of djerba (which was just me reverting it back) but willingly dozens of edits I have done in Habsburgs and their emperors realated article . I'm very interested in Habsburgs and Mediterranean history in general ( part of it comes down to my partial German ancestry) . I have done great amount of edits related to europeon countries including Franco spanish wars , russian wars , Franco Algiers, Anglo french , Italian wars, Siege of kazan , 30 years war ,history of Hungary,Portugese and spain. Infact if you go through my edit history you will notice my highest string of edits are actually in Franco Algiers battles not Ottoman Habsburg. These are some of the accused one. . Btw I have absolutely done many other topics the one the other user hasn't even touced. Some of them are like medicine ,history of chess, history of numerals, scientific discoveries,iron pillar , anaesthesia, history of mathematics,forts , Various dynasties art like for example song and gupta. these are my arguments.plz evaluate it again as indefinite block is way too harshQaayush529 (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2023 (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.