User talk:Retired user 78767

May 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2023 Manipur violence. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Adding words like genocide without widespread attribution from high-quality sources is extremely disruptive. >>> Extorc.talk 20:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2023 Manipur violence, you may be blocked from editing. >>> Extorc.talk 21:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc please provide logical evidence and explanation why the NewYork Times is not considered a Reliable Source. You clearly have a Hindutva interest based on your profile, so you are hardly unbiased (Neither am I for that matter, but the NYtimes is! ). Let's engage in a discussion grounded in reality and healthy debate. Songangte (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. >>> Extorc.talk 04:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Songangte: Did you see this? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR Songangte's actions were blatant. I don't understand what you wish to establish here. >>> Extorc.talk 20:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I was just giving them an opportunity to respond. I personally am not ready to decide on the case. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR thank you for exercising restraint and rationality. I've responded on the noticeboard.

I would like to understand what particular "actions were blatant". The fact that I complied with @Extorc's demands? or the fact that I asked for a healthy debate? Songangte (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I personally don't understand what is your role here, @QuicoleJR considering you are not an admin and not involved here. >>> Extorc.talk 15:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

From what I can tell, ANI allows unbiased bystanders to comment on cases. Here, I was just making sure I was able to hear both sides of the story. I personally do mot have any opinion on the case at this time. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 17:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Retired user 78767. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)