User talk:Whysoanonymous

Welcome!

Hello, Whysoanonymous!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Your edit to Talk:B. B. Lal has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Skyerise (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to provide sources. Could you explain this message or the reason you were asking me for sources? Whysoanonymous (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot copy the whole source article to the talk page. That's a violation of the author's copyright. Use links. You have criticized one out of numerous sources, some of which are peer-reviewed journals. You have not established that ALL the sources are unreliable. Skyerise (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to show that Social Scientist is unreliable, you will need to provide sources that explicitly say so, not just your personal opinion about it. Skyerise (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To invalidate all those academic single author sources, i argue that there is a supreme court judgement in favour of what prof BB lal argued on. And the historial revisionist argument should be removed based on that alone. Apex court judgement >>> journals.

The case went thru multiple court trials and was upheld by the Apex court. That should be more than sufficient to remove this whole personal narrative of historians mentioned in their academic writing.

If you have any objection here lmk. Whysoanonymous (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whysoanonymous! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at B. B. Lal that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2023 (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. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As i said, i am not edit warring. In the latest edit, i have improved the page by organizing the information in appropriate sections. And removing a short redundant line. Whysoanonymous (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is moving the source to a appropriate section constitute deletion? on what basis are you saying this? Whysoanonymous (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should really read WP:3RR. It's not about deletion. It's about repeatedly reverting to your preferred version. More than 3 reverts in 24 hours is edit warring. You've reverted 5 times. Skyerise (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. got it. I will abstain for 24 hrs. But could you really make me understand your reasoning for undoing edits that improve the page. As i said, there is a Apex court judgement that should be more than sufficient for removal of personal academic narratives.

Plus i have added more context in the latest edit. I have not removed anything. Whysoanonymous (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also by this definition, you have also violated 3RR? or am i wrong here Whysoanonymous (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong here. I have not reverted more than 3 times. Other editors have also reverted you. WP:CONSENSUS is against your changes. Skyerise (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: Just so you know, this notice needs to be placed on the edit warrior's talk page, not on the article talk page. — Czello ^(music) 10:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello i have not removed any sourced material. I have moved it to appropriate section. could you explain your undo? Whysoanonymous (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to revert: that's 6 now

Um, you just reverted me again. [1] Skyerise (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted a valid source. I added it back. Is that revert too?

Also why delete a presentation? Whysoanonymous (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to explain WP:3RR to you. Read it. Any undoing of another editor's edit is a revert. I removed something, you put it back. That's a revert. Skyerise (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

got it. But why remove that link? without discussion on the talk page? Whysoanonymous (talk) 12:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a reason in my edit summary. I don't have to discuss every edit on the talk page. Skyerise (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are going against what you were preaching me earlier. This is not your biography. This is a public page. Whysoanonymous (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT a public page. It is a Wikipedia page. If you don't follow our rules, you will be blocked from editing here. It's that simple. Skyerise (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

exactly my point here. Whysoanonymous (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you're here to intentionally get blocked? Skyerise (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the least. My point is this is a wiki page and you should engage constructively on the talk page like i am engaging. Whysoanonymous (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not engaging constructively. You are making claims that sources are not reliable without backing that up with sources. You are making claims that the citations do not support the article text when they actually do. You are not being constructive, you are being disruptive on the talk page and I believe that is your intent. That's grounds for an indefinite block because it indicates that your reason for being here is not to build a better encyclopedia but rather your intend is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and to be disruptive when other editors disagree with you. Skyerise (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you can threaten me all you want. Multiple sources have been clubbed incorrectly for a certain narrative. The information should be supported by facts. it's not OR, it is AND.

And my discussions are based on facts. And the apex court judgement should be given utmost credibility than these fringe chapters from obscure journals, that make up 20% of the page. 20%. that is no joke, and utterly biased. Shalom. Whysoanonymous (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't seem to get is: Scholars opinions of each other are actually citable facts. Skyerise (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are driving a false narrative by citing articles *incorrectly*. Period. You will be reported too. Whysoanonymous (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add that material to the article. I am preventing you from removing it because none of your arguments against the sources have proven to be true. The sky is not falling. Skyerise (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at B. B. Lal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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) 13:05, 3 November 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).

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

Request reason:

I have been contesting incorrect and blatently wrong use of fringe citatations that are currently supporting atleast 20-30% of the article. The edits i make were frequently reverted by @Skyerise . Till now on the talk page, they have not been able to challange me on the facts. I have noted the 3RR rules here, and should be unblocked based on my factual arguments with the user who initiated the block. shalom. Whysoanonymous (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been edit warring. It doesn't matter at all if you are wrong or right; edit warring is destructive to Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:47, 3 November 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.

Whysoanonymous (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]