User talk:Nonethelessian

Welcome!

Hello, Nonethelessian! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

July 2021

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Swarajya (magazine), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonethelessian (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC) Sorry for my mistake, will put summary from next time. I just moved the information related to controversy from the lead section to the controversy section so that it is easier for the people to get the information under one section. If you agree with the explanation let me know can you make the edits done by me. Thanks.[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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. -- DaxServer (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Baran district, you may be blocked from editing. Please read about the WP:NOINDICSCRIPT policy, the Indic scripts are not allowed. -- DaxServer (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonethelessian (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC) But why this discriminatory policy for Indic Scripts only? Why can't Wikipedia allow the native language be written along with the English? Why isn't this the case with other scripts like Chinese? Have a look at China, this page using Chinese is okay but Indian page using Indic Scripts is not? Isn't it discriminatory? Where is your equality now? Please answer with satisfactory reason. Thanks.[reply]

If you go to the policy I linked above, the Wikipedia:NOINDICSCRIPT, you can see seven discussions linked there. That should give you answers you are looking for. If you are not satisfied, you may post in Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and start a fresh discussion and argue for why Indic scripts should be allowed. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But if you continue to ignore NOINDICSCRIPT and I know about it, I'll block you. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Swarajya (magazine). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tayi_Arajakate Hello, see WP:CSECTION for the edit related to 'Controversy' section. And Swarajya_(magazine) claims to be 'Liberal Right' on its About us page, See there. So nothing is unsourced here. You are just bullying the new editors like me. I don't fear blocking at the very first place because am not wrong here. I attached the link to their about us page. You are being biased here. Please get my edits back or give me reason about your this weird behaviour. Give the valid reasons. Waiting for your reply. Nonethelessian (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

t's irrelevant what Swarajya describes themselves as, you need to use reliable sources. The essay on CSECTION also does not mean one gets to remove or minimize negative information in an article when they are reliably sourced. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 02:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please Unblock me

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).

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

Request reason:

My intention was not to be disruptive but to make the neutral changes, but I think I was too bold. While I tried to discuss the thing on talk pages, I did some mistakes which might have considered as offence. I am a new writer, so this was my mistake. I am sorry for this and I assure you that I shall, from now on. will think twice before publishing my changes. I regret my boldness and overexcitement. I want to contribute to this information sharing platform. Please unblock me, I am very passionate about writing. Thanks Nonethelessian (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

New editors are given plenty of rope here, provided they try to learn our rules, but when I read the warnings above and your responses, I don't see you making any attempts to learn from the advice you get from experienced editors. Instead you attack them, such as "You are just bullying the new editors like me". That can't be excused as "overexcitement". Combined with your highly tendentious editing, such as removing great chunks of well-sourced negative content from Swarajya (magazine), it makes me agree with the blocking admin. You appear to be here to push a point of view, rather than to help build a factual encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 24 July 2021 (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.

@Bishonen: I didn't remove that negative chunk from Swarajya (magazine), I had just put that into the controversy section. Also that "Bullying me" was my first mistake and she/he directly threatened me with "You'll be blocked", so I said that (Bullying part). And as you have seen above in the WP:CSECTION part, I questioned her/him (about discrimination) but after being answered, I didn't make that mistake again. So from, now I shall not make these mistakes also. Please give me another chance. Thanks. - Nonethelessian (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a removal of a lot of references to me, combined with tendentious changes such as changing "Swarajya is an Indian right-wing monthly print magazine and news portal. The publication reports favourably on the Bharatiya Janata Party" into simply "Swarajya is an Indian monthly print magazine and news portal", with all the references gone. Those are the first two sentences of the lead section, which is supposed to summarise the article. I don't see you moving it to the controversy section, except, in your next edit, the second sentence, in the form "They alleged that the publication reports favourably on the Bharatiya Janata Party" (no references). Altogether, after Materialscientist reverted your removal, your next edit went on to slant the controversy section with various "alleged" nonsense and strange repetitions — do you really think you improved that section? But you're free to post another unblock appeal, which will be reviewed by another admin. Bishonen | tålk 21:00, 24 July 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am sorry for the mistakes, I regret it. Please give me another chance. Please unblock me. I'll not disappoint. Please... - Nonethelessian (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per your exchange with Bishonen above. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2021 (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.

.