User talk:Tanglei ariba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 2023[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Veverve. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Umang Lai, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Meitei language. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist This was not vandalism. I made corrections to the page. What was previously written is not correct. Can you undo your revert? Tanglei ariba (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Manipur (princely state), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. In this edit, you appear to have added your own opinion, not validated by the source. Please refrain from such edits in future. Kautilya3 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Information icon Hi Tanglei ariba! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Manipur (princely state) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Manipur (princely state), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kautilya3, thanks for reaching out. I would greatly appreciated reaching a consensus for the dispute before you removed my edits in the first place. You have cited unscholarly references for the reason. It would have been nice if you looked into those references first. They are books written by scholars and experts in the field. Again, I would greatly appreciate discussing my edits further before you revert back my changes. Thanks! Tanglei ariba (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tranglei, since you are a new editor, you need to go slow and be conservative with your edits. All edits are subject to WP:CONSENSUS, and need to pass peer review by other editors. Your edis pushed back the time span of the page by a thousand years based only on website sources. That is a very WP:BOLD step to take. Just becase Wikipedia can be edited, you can't assume that everything can be chanced at will. For historical information, a lot of scrutiny is required. The best thing for you to do is to go to the article talk page and make small proposals, along with your sources, so that we can examine them and decide what can be included and what cannot be. The problem with Manipur history is that it is mostly home-grown and hasn't received much attention from wider scholarship. Gangmumei Kamei's book(s) is widely regarded as authentic. If you have access to itt, please consult it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 I like peer review - and constructive criticism and feedbacks with solid foundations, that is with proper references and not just personal opinions on the mater. For example, according to this, this, and that, this statement is controversial, etc. "The problem with Manipur history is that it is mostly home-grown and hasn't received much attention from wider scholarship." - this is purely your personal opinion, while you have the right to express it, judging works of well qualified scholars and experts on the topic based on this is unethical. If you disagree upon a statement, provide proper citations and references, otherwise, removing edits which have solid, scholarly references constitute vandalism. Again, before removing any of my edits which are properly cited, discuss on the talk page first and reach a consensus before vandalizing my edits. I always welcome constructive criticism and feedbacks. Tanglei ariba (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kautilya3 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kautilya3! thanks for your message. Just curious which pages are you referring to that I edited which is designated as contentious topic. Tanglei ariba (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All India pages are considered contentious. Manipur pages especially so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 thanks for bringing this to my attention Tanglei ariba (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Mubaoinam per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mubaoinam. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.
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 submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
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) 11:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #77741 [edit]

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tanglei_ariba&oldid=1171760267"