User talk:Imaginie

Aug 23[edit]

I am unsure what you last edit summery was talking about, but we do not allow racism. Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I am just a person that despises use of public property for protests for an extended period of time. A month is enough to get the message heard. Imaginie (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, why am I here debating with a foreign national ignorant about the riots. Imaginie (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not debating, your reply told me nothing, what does it mean? You do actually have to explain what you want to do and why. At the article talk page (see WP:ONUS and wp:consensus). Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And please read wp:editwar. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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; read about 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. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 10 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.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Imaginie!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sar tan se juda[edit]

Dear Imaginie, Yes welcome to Wikipedia. I read your mission statement on your recently published user page. (See here)Not knowing what the expression in boldface, “sar tan se juda,” meant, I checked on Google Translate and out popped “severed head.”

Are you suggesting that you fear that questioning Islam can result in the beheading of the questioner? Please confirm and please do so in a less formal linguistic register—lowered, perhaps to my more commonplace English, not unlike, say, the rough and ready style you employed in your reply to Slatersteven above. I am not able to do much more editing on a phone but will look forward to your reply upon my return home and to a desktop on August 16th. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ever heard of blasphemy. Imaginie (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm in simple language without passing the buck to links.

What is it you might fear sitting in the Gar in the Mecca hill where the first words of the Qu’ran were revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, that you will not sitting in the forthcoming temple in Ajudhya, where the Lord Rama was born in the Treta yuga, long before anatomically modern humans had separated from their primate cousins in Africa. What is a sentence of blasphemy that you will be able to utter in that temple but not in the cave where your only audience might be the cave’s cats, as they were during our family’s visit? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not abuse freedom of speech to torment individuals who hold religious beliefs, engaging in verbal assaults. I hold their dignity in the highest regard. If they are not receptive to criticism, they are free to leave, and I would not be hounding them for who they are. I condemn radicals across all faiths; even radical Hindus, offended as demonstrated by the Kali poster controversy, are swift to react. However, it's important to note that unlike Jihadis who have prominently occupied my user page as a prime example of religious extremism, radicals from other faiths rarely, if ever, resort to murder in response.

I would like to share a quote from the beloved of the Devas, Salman Rushdie: we cannot allow religious hooligans to place limiting points on thought. Imaginie (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't born to disrupt places of worship, where people seek peace, quiet, and inner solace. These are not the appropriate forums for raising criticisms which are havens of tranquility and respite for the religious. If you have the mental caliber, you might be able to address the question yourself by comparing the responses to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and the film poster featuring Goddess Kali. Imaginie (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Editorkamran (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

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.

Courcelles (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Courcelles, your block is quite unfair. There is no evidence of abuse, and I had not received any prior warning about WP:SOAPBOX. It was premature of you to reveal my accounts, especially given my solid experimental setup aimed at gathering evidence of POV-pushers on Wikipedia for an upcoming blog I intend to write. Allow me to share some of my findings thus far: Did you know that after I removed a false reference on the Hindu-Arabic numerical system article, another editor promptly reverted it and added yet another false reference to strengthen the claim (so, two false references). Did you know that on the 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes article, an editor removed the mention of "India losing control of 2000 square kilometers," which was only added back recently due to my intervention. Another instance involves the Jali article, where Hindu Jali examples were removed by yet another POV-pusher. On a more positive note, I was pleased with the editors on the Arunachal Pradesh article, as they had accepted NPOV through my mention of Chinese claims on the region. Regrettably, I must express my dissatisfaction with your decision to revert my removal of content from the history of scientific method article. Upon reading this [1] book, it was clear that the content I removed was nothing but an instance of ownership-POV-pushing. To date, my encounters with POV-pushers caught red-handed have not been pleasant. The existing measures to counteract such behavior on Wikipedia appear inadequate and hence, Wikipedia is a net-negative on my reviews currently. Imaginie (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What you are describing is clearly abusive. Yamla (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2023 (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.