User talk:OnlyTruthShallPrevail

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, OnlyTruthShallPrevail, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Aayush Sharma (2nd nomination) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Hello there is a discussion regarding u on WP:ARE, plz respond.Heba Aisha (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plz keep ur comment in ur own section in WP:ARE don't post below mine.Its the rule there.Heba Aisha (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep statement short and in points. There are some Standard procedure to be followed. Heba Aisha (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--OnlyTruthShallPrevail (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Hello, Chariotrider555 Can you please point me to the comment that I changed? I didnt mean any intentional change in other's comments.[reply]

You corrected a spelling error I made. [1] Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--OnlyTruthShallPrevail (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Chariotrider555 that wansn't intentional.[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, you may be blocked from editing. Since you are warned several times Heba Aisha (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha: Please, don't make wild accusation without direct links to objectionable material. I have never put anything that is unreferenced in any article on Wikipedia. It is your eco-system that keeps deriving unfounded inferences and vandalizes on all the pages related to castes in India.

That isn't a warning about what you are adding to articles, it is warning you about taking stuff out. Stop removing content supported by high quality sources. Wikipedia is not censored.Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heba Aisha: and @Chariotrider555: operated by same person. Way to collude and bully. The thing is, nowhere in wikipedia it says that you get to decide what sources are reliable vs not. I have quoted Encyclopedia Britannica if you know what that is. If not, go back and get some more education before spamming my talk page.

I didn't decide it, editors came to the consensus long before I even joined Wikipedia on what sources are reliable and what are not. Read Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, and look through the archives of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chariotrider555: It doesn't disqualify Encyclopedia Britannica, does it? --OnlyTruthShallPrevail (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PSTS and WP:BRITANNICA. Secondary sources are considered the highest tier. Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have removed text where primary source is directly contradicting opinions of secondary source. Let us build consensus on talk page. Also, please stop trolling my work. OnlyTruthShallPrevail (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Chariotrider555. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Accusing him of trolling Firestar464 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Firestar464:. Thanks for the kind information, I will keep that in mind going forward. However, it appears that all the rules of Wikipedia are getting applied to my account while Chariotrider555 and Heba Aisha gets a free run. They have ganged up against me to take revenge of block of chariotrider555 and initiated an arbitration request on on WP:AE. Is there any rule of Wikipedia that protects new accounts from such bullying? Also, is there a rule on wikipedia that prevents hateful accounts to publish their opinions, that are of without any direct reference?

There is no cabal and there is no such thing as them getting a free run. You have continually made personal attacks on them, acting as if they did not know what Encyclopedia Britannica was and accusing them of trolling and sockpuppetry. You were warned because of your conduct and censorship of Wikipedia content, not them. Now please stop making personal attacks, or I will not hesitate to report you at WP:ANI. Firestar464 (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Firestar464: Please do what you have to do, I don't take threats from anyone.

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

~~A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.~~

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Firestar464 (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Firestar464:: Which page?

Your user page; it attacks User:Chariotrider555 and User:Heba Aisha. Also, please stop making WP:POLEMIC statements at ANI and treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Firestar464 (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Firestar464: why would i talk about any other editor on my user page. I have not named any editor, unless there is presumption of guilt on their part.

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 ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 13:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the information @RegentsPark:. I see you were also involved in editorial dispute on Jadeja. Pack of wolves!

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).

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

Request reason:

Wikipedia Administrator RegentsPark was part of the editorial dispute on the Jadeja article and he ended up arbitrating complaint against me on WP:AE in violation of WP:COIN. There appears to be a coordinated effort by some accounts (Chariotrider555, Heba Aisha, Luke Emily, Regents Park) to not allow any edits on Jadeja and Rajputization articles that contradicts their opinions. I have never edited any article without direct references and made an honest effort on talk page to handle disputes in editorial views. When you present references, these editors will neglect the reference. I have also contributed to verity of subjects. Yet, RegentsPark ruled that I am in violation of WP:NOTHERE Also, note that Jadeja article was changed significantly after blocking me. There are other accounts that tried to show other side with good references, but those too eventually got blocked by this eco system that is on Wikipedia to promote their hateful agenda. They accuse others of WP:NOTHERE, but in fact they are the ones who are in violation of WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLE and WP:HA. I request neutral Administrator to look at this situation and take corrective measures on editors that are colluding to silence whoever publishes thing that they don't like.

Decline reason:

It is clear that you don't understand why you're in the wrong here and are continuing to tilt at windmills. If you wish to be unblocked, make a reasonable unblock request but if you continue with these insinuations against others then your talk page access will also be revoked. —SpacemanSpiff 05:34, 15 December 2020 (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.

Hi OnlyTruthShallPrevail. Could you explain how I'm involved in this dispute? I'm not sure I even know what this dispute is so I'm a bit puzzled by your accusation. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs to support your claims. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @331dot:. Please see these two comments on Jadeja talk page by RegentsPark - Ref 1. [2] and 2. [3]. After these two comments RegentsPark took a back seat, while Chariotrider555 stated doing it's bidding. Later on, chariotrider555 got temporary block [4] for violating WP:EW. Heba Aisha then came to rescue Chariotrider555, please see Chariotrider555's talk page and search for text from Heba Aisha and review comments. Now, if you search talk, you will see collusion between LukeEmily and Heba Aisha editors, in order to silence any edits on Rajput related articles that they don't like. I know other neutral editors may not have time to go through all the history, but I humbly request to do so in this case. This is just an example how this eco system that has gained privileges on this platform are misusing it to block anyone that they don't like. New editors like me don't yet know all the policies of Wikipedia, and they use these technicality to keep us busy in these accusation to our frustration and hope that we make a rude comment, that they can later harp on to complain to Editorial Boards. You will see a pattern on how these few editors keep on colluding to get editors like me blocked on regular basis. Also, LukeEmily has made 8 significant edits on Jadeja article, since RegentsPark blocked me indefinitely - Ref: [5]. Basically, these accounts want to draw a foul by frustrating a well intentioned editor, and use WP:BP as a tool to crush editorial disputes rather than using talk page on the articles.

Thank you for the diffs. Since you're diffs are a little confusing (best to point to single edits rather than groups of edits), I'm including the specific two edits I made to the talk page here [6] and [7]. I don't really see these as making me involved because they are generic statements on sourcing so I stand by my NOTHERE block. But, of course, any admin who thinks differently is welcome to undo it. Best. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Besides the fact that the edits that you did started the long editorial dispute on Jadeja; you and Heba Aisha, the initiator of WP:AE against me are working very closely together since July 2020. That is 2nd count for WP:COIN and WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE violation - reference [8] --OnlyTruthShallPrevail (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Heba Aisha has posted on my talk page, that's only normal since I am an adminstrator. You're grasping at straws if you think that is "working together" (are we - you and I - working together now that we've had an exchange?). --RegentsPark (comment) 23:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such a co-incidence that from many available Administrators, Heba Aisha chooses to interact with you mostly. PS: I couldn't figure out a good way to search all here talk with Administrator, so I manually reviewed her edits on user talk pages [9]. Only one admin I could find Heba Aisha talking to was RegentsPark. RegentsPark jumped on to block me on Heba Aisa's WP:AE report, regardless of In_actu suggesting to not apply a block [10].

I think you're seeing conspiracies against you where they don't actually exist and that's never a good prognosis on Wikipedia. But, to be fair to you, I'll let someone else deal with this. Best wishes. --RegentsPark (comment) 02:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying I am mentally delusional. I think that is personal attack, some thing that I was accused of doing against Heba Aisha and Chariotrider555, and let to this current blockage. Will the same standard be upheld against you RegentsPark? OnlyTruthShallPrevail (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your access to editing this page has been revoked because of your ridiculous personal attacks, such as "pack of wolves" and wild assumptions of bad faith. See the notice below for how you can appeal the block. Bishonen | tålk 09:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Bishonen | tålk 09:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Good job in providing good reference on Jadeja article. ResearchProjectSEA (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Good job on providing details on Jadeja on it's talk page. ResearchProjectSEA (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:OnlyTruthShallPrevail/sandbox/OnlyTruthShallPrevail[edit]

Hello, OnlyTruthShallPrevail. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox/OnlyTruthShallPrevail".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]