User talk:Cupidvogel

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Cupidcobra1! 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 loving 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. Happy editing! Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism 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 Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Proposed deletion of The Will That Vanished[edit]

The article The Will That Vanished has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't seem to pass WP:BK, online sources are only passing mentions.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of The Will That Vanished[edit]

I have nominated The Will That Vanished, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Will That Vanished. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability[edit]

WP:V is one of the core principles of Wikipedia - "Verifiability not Truth". Even if we know something to be true, others must be able to verify it (out word is not enough). For example, you might know for true that "The Will That Vanished" is a notable and famous book by a notable author. But that is not enough to include it in Wikipedia. You should be able to prove with citations in Reliable Sources (like newspaper reviews, etc) that it is indeed so. Since such reviews would not be available online for others to verify, we are not able to prove that the book indeed meets wikipedia's conditions for notability for books. For keeping the article from deletions you can find reviews for the book in old newspapers and can add them.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissistic number[edit]

Hello, Cupidvogel. You have new messages at Gandalf61's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Copyright problems with File:Pamela prati ac89.jpg[edit]

Hello. Concerning your upload of the image File:Pamela prati ac89.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted images obtained from other sources, without the permission of the author(s). This image appears to be a direct copy from www.gossip.it. As a copyright violation, File:Pamela prati ac89.jpg falls under the speedy deletion criteria and has been deleted.

If you believe that the image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under a free license then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave me a message explaining the details and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the <pick a free licence> or released into the public domain leave me a message at my talk page with a link to where I can find that note.
If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on [[Talk:File:Pamela prati ac89.jpg]].
Or alternately drop me a note about this file if I have misunderstood something.
- Peripitus (Talk) 11:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with trying to use such an image here is that (in line with the slogan under the Wikipedia logo) the policy is not to keep such images. The first criteria of the non-free content policy largely prevents the use of copyrighted images of living people. It is almost always deemed that a free image could be created - Peripitus (Talk) 11:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:"A photo exhibit shows Shaheed Udham Singh being taken away from Taxon Hall after the assassination of Michael O’ Dwyer".jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:"A photo exhibit shows Shaheed Udham Singh being taken away from Taxon Hall after the assassination of Michael O’ Dwyer".jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 11:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 11:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Caisson-blueprint.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Caisson-blueprint.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Mayur ^{(talk•Email)} 10:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Howrah Bridge during construction in 1942.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Howrah Bridge during construction in 1942.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Steelwork.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Steelwork.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You used the {{helpme}} tag but did not ask a question. Please write out your question and replace the {{helpme}} tag when you are done, and someone will be along to help. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the new contributors help desk, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-help IRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Stockholm.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Stockholm.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Stockholm2.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Stockholm2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems: Meghnad Saha[edit]

Hello. Your edits to Meghnad Saha have had to be removed pending clarification of copyright status. It was discovered last month that a substantial amount of text was duplicative of the 1995 book Saha and His Formula, which is copyrighted by the Universities Press India. If you represent the copyright owner, we can (of course) utilize their text in this way. Please see WP:IOWN for the processes for verifying your connection to Universities Press India. If you have permission from the copyright owner, we can work with that as well, but will need you to forward it to the Wikimedia Foundation so that it can be evaluated for license compatibility. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the procedure. If you have questions about either of these processes, you are welcome to come by my talk page. I am very happy to further explain.

Alternatively, if you are not in position to license the material, you are welcome to rewrite the content entirely in your own words, except for brief and explicitly marked quotations. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrase for more.

There is more information, including an example, at the talk page of the article.

Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As far as I remember, I did not duplicate content, just took reference to it and rewrote it in my own language. In a few places where I might have duplicated, I have explicitly cited the book as the reference. That does not warrant removing the entire article on copyright issues. - Cupidvogel ^(talk)

Non-free rationale for File:Howrah Bridge during construction.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Howrah Bridge during construction.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 1 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Aparajito page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Cupidvogel. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Amazon Original Website.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Amazon Original Website.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Cupidvogel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Cupidvogel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 20:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing at Vinayak Damodar Savarkar[edit]

Please note that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. The kind of praise and emotive wording that your edit here heaps on the subject ("tirelessly", "fearlessly" "whole-heartedly") is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and contrary to our policy WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not for expressing your admiration of any person or subject, but for neutral description only. Bishonen | tålk 21:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TrangaBellam (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page block[edit]

This long addition is very awkward. In the first place, how is it that you're on first-name terms with Professor Audrey Truschke? Is she really "Audrey" to you? Secondly, you use unreliable sources such as The Wire. At a glance, I see a source from 1867. And now you're edit warring to force your text into the article. You have been page-blocked from Audrey Truschke for two weeks. Please feel free to discuss your proposed changes on the talkpage in the meantime. (It would have been appropriate to do that as soon as you were reverted, instead of reverting back.) You are only blocked from the article, not its talkpage. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 21:56, 3 March 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Audrey Truschke is the person under contention here, so I assumed it is fairly obvious that "Audrey" refers to her, it is tiresome to keep referring her as "Professor Audrey Truschke" which serves no purpose otherwise. The Wire is considered a leading and supposedly unbiased media house in India as clearly mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the same, and has won several national and international awards for the standards of its publications, and has been used as reference in umpteen Wikipedia articles, so why suddenly is its authenticity in question? The 1867 reference is added as an additional citation to a citation from the "OpenTheMagazine" website to substantiate what it had written, and both sources prove that there is no evidence of Aurangzeb having done his acts of temple destruction as "political or administrative tasks" and it is a modern interpretation based upon no evidence. You mentioned some valid points about the edits I had made on the article on Savarkar, notably towards usage of exalted words like "tirelessly", which I promptly removed and in fact added more sources to corroborate what I had added. I did not do any edit-war, I merely reverted the changes by another user and observed that he/she had reverted changes on multiple occasions to multiple articles with vague reasoning like "too difficult to make sense of", a habit he/she maintains consistently, upon which I mentioned that I will always come back with concrete evidence and citation, which is exactly what I did - how does this count as edit-war, and if so, the brunt of it should be borne by the user who started the edits without evidence, as opposed to the one who did it with incremental evidence true to Wikipedia's standards. A user should be blocked on these grounds - disrespecting others (which I did not even to do, calling Professor Audrey Truschke as "Audrey" is anything but disrespect), making edits that are unsubstantiated (not only did I not do that, but I have barely edited two articles since yesterday, they cannot possibly have enough wrong edits to warrant a blocking, and anyway, not one citation has yet been disproved, The Wire is not a disputed source). Cupidvogel (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Feel free to bring all these points to the article talk page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:27, 3 March 2022 (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.

I'm afraid I misspoke about The Wire not being a reliable source; it is. I wrote in too much haste; what I wanted to point out about The Wire was that you misused it, Cupidvogel. Its review, that you refer to, mentions the absence of footnotes in Truschke's book on Aurangzeb, but not as a criticism, and not at all to show that she's "leaving the user with no option to cross-check her observations with contemporary sources or works by other eminent historians, and tries to ignore the view of many Hindus of Aurangzeb being a religious bigot", as you write. It merely says there are no footnotes as an example of the book being a popular work aimed at the lay reader. The review is highly positive, which nobody could have dreamed from the way you use it. This is tendentious editing at its finest. I see Vanamonde93 makes this point, along with many others, here on Talk:Audrey Truschke. But I'm sorry I said The Wire was unreliable; that was a mistake on my part. Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
There is no correlation between lack of footnotes and its readability to the lay user, footnotes never force the lay user to read them, they can and they often do ignore them and read along, it is only for the interested user that the footnote offers a way to trace the author's viewpoint and find substance in it. The reasoning is ridiculous, particularly in light of the fact that the reviewer - Mukhia, had authored similar books with similar viewpoints on Aurangzeb, and hence he naturally agrees to Truschke's point of view, and this arrangement hardly qualifies as "objective" or "unbiased" review, after all two flat-earthers can write lengthy documents explaining their point of view, and both can endorse each other, that doesn't tantamount to an objective review.. Sample this - if Leonardo Da Vinci draws a portrait of Jesus Christ and proclaims that is is important, and Michelangelo does the same, and both endorse each other on their shared viewpoint, then each of this incident is used a reference in respective articles on Vinci and Michelangelo to drive home the point that Jesus Christ is important and hence he drew his portrait, how will it sound like? In particular, absence of footnotes reduces accountability to zero, giving the author a freehand in concocting lofty tales, which Truschke gleefully does, for example, she cites Maasir-i-Alamgiri (a primary source) and dismisses its mentions of Aurangzeb's religious excesses as "exaggerated", without offering any evidence in favour of its dismissal, and her claim on interviews on websites that Aurangzeb's subordinates hatched those tales to please the king begs the question as to why they would have to hatch stories of temple destruction to ply a supposedly secular and tolerant ruler. This kind of academic dishonesty becomes possible when citations are not offered, that has zilch to do with the interests of the lay-reader.

I am still trying to understand - on what ground could an admin block me here from editing the article? A supposedly long rant on a talk page? That is no ground at all, considering the fact that the rant had no abusive words in it. Edit-warring? There was one round of edit-warring, the first one was me reinducting the deleted passages with ample citations, and they were promptly reverted back by the original user with vague reasoning, which I reinducted with more citations, some of which are in contention here (perhaps rightly so). So basically one round of edit-warring. That's it? This is ground for blocking me? This becomes possible when there is a small coterie of admins and authors who have a particular idea of a topic and are determined to use their might in blocking any view contrary to that, and subjecting new citations to imaginary standards (not only the book cited must be well reviewed, but all reviewers should be uniformly positive about it, and all those reviewers should be of substance, and that substance should be proven by more people of substance, and it goes on) so rigorous that no new addition is possible. May be I will try and draw attention of more admins to the topic and verify if this is blatant misuse of privilege.
It makes no difference if you think Mukhia's argument is "ridiculous". You're referring to Mukhia and making them say something they didn't say; that's what matters. And now you're arguing with your own source? And you hazard that I may have blocked you for "a supposedly long rant on a talkpage"? That's strange. I explicitly blocked you for this edit to the article, as I said in my block notice (did you not click on my links there?) and for restoring it here after it had been reverted. When I blocked you, you had never visited Talk:Audrey Truschke. As for drawing more admins' attention to what you believe is my blatant misuse of privilege, absolutely, why not? You can explain all about it in a new unblock request, which will bring another uninvolved admin here to review it. Or, for still more admins' eyes on the matter, you can post a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I should caution you, though, that that will also bring your own actions under scrutiny. Bishonen | tålk 12:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

March 2022[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Audrey Truschke. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 1 month for edit warring. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you continued edit warring at Vinayak Damodar Savarkar while you were blocked from a different article for edit warring, you are now blocked from editing all articles. Please see WP:RECIDIVISM. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that if you go on like this you're facing a site block. Tendentious in the extreme. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring.[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Akshaypatill (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]