User talk:Camerontreolar

April 2024

Hello, I'm That Tired Tarantula. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 05:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. It seems like the content itself is being presented neutrally; however, if it is the case that there are some people who support Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury's actions and if viewpoints supporting them are well-documented by sources, then you could argue that some facts are omitted by using the article's Talk page and that the article isn't neutral as a result (you could also argue that some information isn't necessary by using the Talk page). Anyways, please try to discuss content removals first if the content is sourced (and especially if the content could be controversial). That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 05:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research, this person and his views do seem to be pretty controversial, so using the Talk would probably be more helpful. Please also note how here on Wikipedia, we tend to focus on presenting the facts and on giving points of view due weight instead of selecting information for how it will be seen by others. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 06:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like some editors wan to keep the negativity on the page. I am not suggesting to omit the content but the representation of the content can be optimized positively to portray the same information as it was before. No editor has any lawful right to defame anyone directly. Same content can be written using different words avoiding negativity but at the same time conveying the same information. Camerontreolar (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Observation over the past few months, it can be easily concluded that some editors have a personal motive against the page or the concerned person which is why even legit citations are getting removed, some of which includes TOI, HT. IIT, The Tribune etc.

An encyclopedia is not a place to hold personal grudges. Camerontreolar (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But a better strategy would probably be to try to make a discussion about any suppression of content first, instead of removing sourced content; content shouldn't be removed just for the sake of how nice it seems. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 13:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. RationalPuff (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury, you may be blocked from editing. RationalPuff (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seems like you have a personal motive rather than keeping the encyclopedia open source and fair for all. Such behaviors is disastrous for any encyclopedia as well as illegal in terms of human rights. Camerontreolar (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please don't assume bad faith if users revert. Second of all, the wording could be changed a bit, but that doesn't mean that an entire chunk of material needs to be removed just because it might not be seen as positive (and how is that keeping the encyclopedia more open?) That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 16:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need to optimize the wordings in the content. Camerontreolar (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly here with one purpose and not to build an encyclopedia. And it's not working. Before you make any further edits I suggest you read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not the right place to promote opinion and advocacy WP:NOTADVOCACY RationalPuff (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Sachinrangda per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sachinrangda. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 16:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]