User talk:Piedpiper186

September 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to British cuisine, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Um, now you have me really surprised, even confused actually: I thought you were attempting to improve the article, but each time you are removing reliable sources such as to national newspapers, which simply isn't acceptable without broad consensus (e.g. that things are off-topic, not the case here). Please stop or you could be blocked from editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 British cuisine, you may be blocked from editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. MrOllie (talk) 12:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am editing the article because of I am an aspiring historian and the article has too many historical inaccuracies such as- wheat was introduced in England around 6000 years ago but in the article it's written that it was introduced no before than 500 BC,like this it has many other inaccuracies. Please stop reverting my changes in the article. Thank you. Piedpiper186 (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are deleting all the citations and replacing the article with an unsourced version. That's not how Wikipedia works. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am only editing "Dates of introduction in Britain" part in the article and I will only delete citations given in that certain part. Please let me change the article it's spreading false info I am new in Wikipedia and I'll be grateful that you let me change the article. Thank you. Piedpiper186 (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't know to provide sources I am editing the article using mobile. Please let me change it. Thank you Piedpiper186 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how to provide sources Piedpiper186 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may not replace a sourced version with an unsourced one. If you have sources and are having trouble adding them, see WP:RS (to make sure they meet our requitements) and Wikipedia:Citing sources (for details on how to add them).

Do not edit war, as you have been. If someone reverts your changes you should go to the associated article's talk page and discuss it with them to make an agreement on how to proceed. If you keep edit warring as you have been it is likely your account will be blocked. MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I do that on my mobile?? I can find some sources from google if it's okay? Thank you. Piedpiper186 (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most stuff you will find on google will not be OK, no. You must read the guidelines on reliable sources I just linked and follow them. MrOllie (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add online news articles as sources?? Piedpiper186 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ideal. There are plenty of textbooks that describe the history of British cuisine, from Alan Davidson's Oxford Companion to Food to Clarissa Dickson Wright's A History of English Food and Gilly Lehmann's The British Housewife or Dorothy Hartley's Food in Britain, to name a few of the many decent sources. If you're a historian then you will also know of many academic research articles, though here I'd urge some caution, as WP:PRIMARY sources can be pushing minority points of view not accepted by other researchers, so review articles and textbooks are generally better choices. It's possible to add citations from a mobile but of course sitting down with a bigger screen and editing more carefully will be both easier and produce better results. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the new archaeological excavations and recent studies have already proven wrong many of the things written in these books and where do we get the news of these recent studies? From the news articles so technically they are a genuine source to use.. Piedpiper186 (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - a tertiary source - not a news site or even a place which reports on the latest primary research in science or history; as such, it differs greatly from anything that a historian would come across in their daily work. To repeat, news reports are allowed with care, but are not ideal. The better news outlets provide links to their technical sources; when they are just covering a science or history announcement, the news source is no better than the technical paper (it's still making a primary claim without reviewing it, but may be garbling it in the process of transmission), though if they take the time and have the knowledge of the field to set things in context, that context may be usable. As I also told you, primary sources are dangerous because they may be individual points of view, or reporting research which is subsequently found to be false, not replicable, or exaggerated. A primary source may contain a secondary summary of the state of the field, i.e. a quick appraisal of other research, and this may (perhaps) be usable where the rest of the paper is not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some editing on the article with a proper source please check it out. Thank you. Piedpiper186 (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edited, led in with period, formatted citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Anglo-Indian cuisine. Piedpiper186, you can't do things here on Wiki by repeatedly asserting that things are unreliable, without evidence - indeed, contrary to the cited sources. There will be only one outcome for you if you continue on that path. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I only removed unreliable information as you told me earlier I haven't even touched cited information in that article. Piedpiper186 (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you didn't respond? Piedpiper186 (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Talk:History of India. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. All your contributions to Wikipedia, including talk page discussions, must adhere to WP:NPOV. Please see that page to find out what it means. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN A WARNING!! WOW!! Piedpiper186 (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unreliable and unsourced information

Hi. Could you explain why you're removing sourced information from various articles with the edit summary "removed unreliable information"? When removing well cited content, you should explain why the content is unreliable on the talk page before removing it. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which page exactly you are talking about? Piedpiper186 (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all your recent edits. Diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4] and more. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number 2 and 4 had no citations attached to them (therefore unreliable) and Citations attached to number 1 and 3 weren't reliable as well . Piedpiper186 (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are fine. Here, for example, you're removing material cited to Upinder Singh, a well known historian. But, I'm really curious as to why you would only remove partial information in other articles. For example, you removed beef tongue and fish but kept chutney and mulligatawny in the Anglo Indian culture page though they are cited to the same sources. Then, here, you removed the source for the entire para but deleted only the reference to Indo-Islamic architecture. Is there a reason for this selective removal. If you think a source is unreliable, why not just remove everything? --RegentsPark (comment) 21:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know who upinder singh is because I am a historian myself but in that part it was written that "Ramayana and Mahabharata has no historical basis". Ramayana and Mahabharata are Hindu religious books and I don't want any article to hurt someones religious feelings. Then in the second one there is proper explanation about mulligatawny and chutney in the article but salted beef tongue, fish rissoles and "ball" curry appear just randomly. And in the last one I only deleted only that part because in every other Wikipedia article in which chattris are mentioned and other places (which can be reliable sources for Wikipedia ) they are considered Hindu architectural elements not Indo-Islamic. Piedpiper186 (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't remove well cited information because you think it might hurt someone's religious feelings. In the anglo-indian cuisine cites, both fish rissoles as well as beef tongue are explicitly mentioned. Finally, you can't use other wikipedia articles as a basis for deciding whether a cited source is right or wrong. You do seem to be giving the impression that you have a bias against islamic related content in India articles and I suggest that, going forward, you use the talk page to clearly explain your reasons for removing cited content from articles.--RegentsPark (comment) 12:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're about to get indefinitely blocked. If someone reverts your edits on an article (most of which seem to be pushing a certain pro-Hindu/anti-Islamic POV), you are obliged to make a case for your changes on the talk page of the article to gain consensus. Read WP:BRD for how this works. You are now edit warring, which is a surefire way to cop a ban. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how my edits seem pro Hindu/ anti Islamic? I just TV said that I said that just DON'T want to hurt someones religious feelings. How can you come to a conclusion so quickly? Piedpiper186 (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TV by mistake) Piedpiper186 (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how my edits seem pro Hindu/anti Islamic? I just said that I DON'T want to hurt someones religious feelings. How can you come to a conclusion so quickly? Piedpiper186 (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I mean, selectively deleting any reference to Islamic architecture, India's population being diverse in origin, Hindu texts not being literal truth, references to beef, etc., are a pretty good giveaway. But that isn't the main issue here -- it's that you need to gain consensus for your changes, particularly if they have already been reverted by another user, as described in WP:BRD. It's a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia and you won't last long unless you can grasp it. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I am tired I have barely done 50 edits since I joined Wikipedia and all of them being reverted. First a gentleman told me that you need reliable sources to add information and you can only delete information with no sources or with unreliable sources. When I did that people are still reverting my edits and now I am being dragged inside a inter religious conflict when I just said I don't want to hurt someones religious feelings. Piedpiper186 (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What happened now no one wants to argue??? Piedpiper186 (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were deleting information that clearly had proper sources. Perhaps you were confused because each sentence or word wasn't cited - often you will find one citation for a whole paragraph (or section) at the end of the paragraph. - MrOllie (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I visited all the citations then only I edited the articles. Piedpiper186 (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When that happens and someone reverts you, you should go to the article talk page and clearly explain why the cited source does not support the content you're removing. Get agreement from other editors there before proceeding. If you just make your edit again as you have been, you are edit warring and that is a good way to get blocked from Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hi. Please note that the national origins of other editors is not something you should use in your arguments for inclusion or exclusion of content. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and all editors, whatever their background, must provide such sources for content. Much of your comments on various pages are bordering on being tendentious. That is considered disruptive and you're looking at a WP:NOTHERE block if you continue in the same manner. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many rules does Wikipedia have??? There are more rules than articles in Wikipedia (after saying this I probably broke another rule) Piedpiper186 (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: see this, straight after the comment above. Enough. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

??? Piedpiper186 (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have raised the issue of religious feelings at Talk:History of India, and plenty of responses from very patient editors. You cannot repeat the same issue again. This is WP:Tendentious editing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I won't stop until I get that part removed. And this time I am giving a valid reason for the removal.Piedpiper186 (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is User:Piedpiper186. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Specifically, tendentious editing well in excess makes your conduct incompatible with a collaborative project.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 10:40, 27 September 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).

Piedpiper186 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block wasn't necessary. Sir since I have joined Wikipedia every other editor is behaving rudely to me... First they told me that before editing an article you need to discuss that in talk page of the article when I did that everyone was behaving rudely with me in the talk page.. My discussion was closed by an another editor without my permission and I started another discussion on the same topic with more valid reasons it was also closed and I was blocked without a warning.. Please unblock me. Thank you.Piedpiper186 (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no requirement for warnings- but even if there were, it would be satisfied by the amount of warnings on this page. Please see WP:NOTTHEM; your unblock request should only address your own actions; if others are rude to you, there are proper channels to address that, which do not include fighting fire with fire. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 27 September 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.

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).

Piedpiper186 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sir I have been blocked for disruptive editing but I wasn't directly editing the article when my discussion was closed by another editor I just started another discussion on the same topic. Second thing that I have been blocked for is tendentious editing but I was requesting removal of a certain part in the article which itself was biased I know it's cited but I provided valid reasons for removal but before someone can see it the discussion was closed... Please unblock me. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You have been, precisely, tendentiously editing. I don't think you'll be able to edit collaboratively on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:53, 27 September 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.

Piedpiper186 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 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).

Piedpiper186 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sir I have been blocked for disruptive editing but I wasn't directly editing the article when my discussion was closed by another editor I just started another discussion on the same topic. Second thing that I have been blocked for is tendentious editing but I was requesting removal of a certain part in the article which itself was biased (as being too harsh doesn't mean to be neutral) I know it's cited but I provided valid reasons for removal but before someone can see it the discussion was closed. Please unblock me. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You've already made exactly the same request and that was declined. Repeating the same request is not a good idea and I'm taking away your talk page privileges. RegentsPark (comment) 18:44, 28 September 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.

Piedpiper186 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!!!!!!

I just got blocked because I presented a valid reason for removal of that part and no one couldn't tolerate that.... That's what happens with new editors on Wikipedia??? Piedpiper186 (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not the reason. If you were to reflect just a little bit, view the matter in a detached and self-critical way just a little bit, you would see that. El_C 11:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

RegentsPark (comment) 18:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]