Jump to content

User talk:Pirate of the High Seas: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 109: Line 109:


:In your edit, sourced text from the Background section was removed therefore it has been reverted. The onus for checking mistakes was on you. ''The Hindu'' mentions them with their ranks therefore you should have added ''(retd.)'' after their rank instead of outright removal. Please discuss your changes on the article talkpage first before making them. | [[User:Pirate of the High Seas|Pirate of the High Seas]] ([[User talk:Pirate of the High Seas#top|talk]]) 10:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
:In your edit, sourced text from the Background section was removed therefore it has been reverted. The onus for checking mistakes was on you. ''The Hindu'' mentions them with their ranks therefore you should have added ''(retd.)'' after their rank instead of outright removal. Please discuss your changes on the article talkpage first before making them. | [[User:Pirate of the High Seas|Pirate of the High Seas]] ([[User talk:Pirate of the High Seas#top|talk]]) 10:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
::I missed looking in background section and I get that. I was already tired of editing for 2 hours. Actually, what you did in background section I had written it as ''Background section need more attention'' but then edit conflict happened. And had to shorten my summary. So I have nothing to object about background section. Also, you can clearly see that name(ranks) edit is the third time it has happened. I removed ranks on 28([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_espionage_case_in_Qatar&diff=prev&oldid=1182275190 diff]) since then 4 editors came and looked at article and 5 edits took place. I had clearly explained myself in that edit's summary. No one objected yet because it was logical and NPOV. You don't copy paste everything that a newspaper/source writes (The Hindu). And now you have revered everything back to that edit position. I think you required consensus for going back not me in this case. You were also reverted because of POV push by user4edits then you again reverted that too. You have not taken the issue with user4edits's talk page. Stop this! <span class="ShoeSig">[[User:Ankraj_giri|`~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨]](&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ankraj_giri|C]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User_talk:Ankraj_giri|Talk]]&nbsp;)</span> 11:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:09, 29 October 2023

Welcome!

Hello, Pirate of the High Seas! 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 excited about 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 when making edits to pages.
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

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.

DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Khalistan Tiger Force has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Khalistan Tiger Force. Thanks! Chumpih t 12:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2023 G20 New Delhi summit. Disputed content is removed until the discussion ends in talk page. Maintain neutrality Thewikizoomer (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewikizoomer:, back-and-forth re-adding and re-deleting sourced content isn't vandalism, but it is WP:Edit warring. Both of you should please stop. Wikishovel (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pirate_of_the_High_Seas reported by User:Thewikizoomer (Result: ). Thank you. Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Pirate of the High Seas: Editing while logged out in order to mislead (WP:LOUTSOCK), like you apparently did here will get you blocked. WP:HOUNDING too. Please, de-escalate and move away from the dispute. MarioGom (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pirate of the High Seas. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  firefly ( t · c ) 19:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

I was editing Indian espionage case in Qatar when you published your edit. Please check for mistakes. Also, if you want to call out them with their ranks in Navy they should have been serving personnel not former personnel. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨C • Talk ) 10:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit, sourced text from the Background section was removed therefore it has been reverted. The onus for checking mistakes was on you. The Hindu mentions them with their ranks therefore you should have added (retd.) after their rank instead of outright removal. Please discuss your changes on the article talkpage first before making them. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I missed looking in background section and I get that. I was already tired of editing for 2 hours. Actually, what you did in background section I had written it as Background section need more attention but then edit conflict happened. And had to shorten my summary. So I have nothing to object about background section. Also, you can clearly see that name(ranks) edit is the third time it has happened. I removed ranks on 28(diff) since then 4 editors came and looked at article and 5 edits took place. I had clearly explained myself in that edit's summary. No one objected yet because it was logical and NPOV. You don't copy paste everything that a newspaper/source writes (The Hindu). And now you have revered everything back to that edit position. I think you required consensus for going back not me in this case. You were also reverted because of POV push by user4edits then you again reverted that too. You have not taken the issue with user4edits's talk page. Stop this! `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨C • Talk ) 11:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]