User talk:SpicyBiryani: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 55: Line 55:
::I guess this was inevitable, with India having the largest internet population in the world. Should I just add a 'current' or 'pov' tag to the article for now? We can't keep constantly reverting incorrect edits and give warnings, we have to take breaks. And during these breaks, many may come and take the misleading article as correct information and spread that information, which reflects badly on Wikipedia. So if there's a current or pov tag, it reduces the chances of that happening. Unless, of course, they revert ''that'' as well. [[User:SpicyBiryani |<span style="color:#d4ac0d">SpicyBiryani</span>]] [[User talk:SpicyBiryani|<span style="color: #3563f1">(talk)</span>]] 19:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
::I guess this was inevitable, with India having the largest internet population in the world. Should I just add a 'current' or 'pov' tag to the article for now? We can't keep constantly reverting incorrect edits and give warnings, we have to take breaks. And during these breaks, many may come and take the misleading article as correct information and spread that information, which reflects badly on Wikipedia. So if there's a current or pov tag, it reduces the chances of that happening. Unless, of course, they revert ''that'' as well. [[User:SpicyBiryani |<span style="color:#d4ac0d">SpicyBiryani</span>]] [[User talk:SpicyBiryani|<span style="color: #3563f1">(talk)</span>]] 19:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Yeah you are probably right. A tag for now may be best and then let things cool off before trying to properly balance the article out. I consulted with another editor and he also agrees too many hot heads at the moment pushing their own narrative so it may be best to wait until things calm down before straightening things out. [[User:EkoGraf|EkoGraf]] ([[User talk:EkoGraf|talk]]) 19:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
:::Yeah you are probably right. A tag for now may be best and then let things cool off before trying to properly balance the article out. I consulted with another editor and he also agrees too many hot heads at the moment pushing their own narrative so it may be best to wait until things calm down before straightening things out. [[User:EkoGraf|EkoGraf]] ([[User talk:EkoGraf|talk]]) 19:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction==
{{Ivmbox
|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg
|imagesize=50px
|1=The following sanction now applies to you:

{{Talkquote|1=You are banned from all topics covered by [[WP:ARBIPA]] for three months}}

You have been sanctioned per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=963949488&oldid=963921230 a discussion at AE]

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved administrator]] under the authority of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]]'s decision at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the procedure described at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]]. This sanction has been recorded in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2020|log of sanctions]]. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banning policy]] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeals and modifications|here]]. I recommend that you use the [[Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal#Usage|arbitration enforcement appeals template]] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard.&nbsp;Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
}}

Revision as of 18:44, 22 June 2020


Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, SpicyBiryani! Thank you for your contributions. I am DiplomatTesterMan and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! DTM (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

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.

Template:Z33 Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already seen the banner on the original page and have not made any edits to the article itself, but opened a talk page section about its inaccuracy. SpicyBiryani (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


WP:BATTLE and WP:ASPERSIONS

Stop speculating people's nationality with your messages like "an Indian user has reverted this page", "IP address indicates they are Canadian, a neutral nationality", violate WP:BATTLE and WP:ASPERSIONS. What matters is WP:RS, not nationalities. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not speculating their nationality, there's a button on the bottom of their contributions page that tells you that. SpicyBiryani (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given your continued failure to understand the listed policies, I have filed a report against you at WP:ARE where you can comment. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 21:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The administrators in the thread at WP:AE are now considering whether to ban you from certain topics based on your apparent partisanship and your references to the nationalities of other editors. It might benefit you to make some assurances about your future behavior. For example, you could agree to make no further edits about conflicts regarding India or China for three months. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm replying in the 'statement by SpicyBiryani' section. SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous misleading information

It is seen that you have been constantly adding Indian Claim in the 2020 China- India Skirmish. I would like to inform you please update your the information. News magazine from China including State owned News site and it's editor has also Acknowledged. https://asianews.press/2020/06/16/india-chinese-troops-face-off-at-eastern-ladakh-india-army-officer-killed/amp/. It is requested to reverify the information from various sources. Then upload the details. And if such activity is again done by your side in such controversial topic then you may face serious consequences. Swastik Mridha (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim has been thoroughly debunked on the talk page, but I'll post this here as well: https://twitter.com/bycongwang/status/1272835039823163394. That is an Indian claim, and attempting to paint it as unbiased is a violation of WP:NPOV. SpicyBiryani (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claims are not Indian. https://twitter.com/WenwenWang1127/status/1272807264911372288?s=19 please refer it. And also note the Tweet is from which side. Swastik Mridha (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claims are Indian: https://twitter.com/WenwenWang1127/status/1272818912082583557 SpicyBiryani (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 China–India skirmishes

Regarding the Indian claimed figure on Chinese casualties here [1], some editors are constantly removing the words "and injured", even though, as per the cited source, 43 is both killed AND injured Chinese soldiers and not just killed. Example [2]. EkoGraf (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seems the same editor just reverted your edit as well. EkoGraf (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this was inevitable, with India having the largest internet population in the world. Should I just add a 'current' or 'pov' tag to the article for now? We can't keep constantly reverting incorrect edits and give warnings, we have to take breaks. And during these breaks, many may come and take the misleading article as correct information and spread that information, which reflects badly on Wikipedia. So if there's a current or pov tag, it reduces the chances of that happening. Unless, of course, they revert that as well. SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you are probably right. A tag for now may be best and then let things cool off before trying to properly balance the article out. I consulted with another editor and he also agrees too many hot heads at the moment pushing their own narrative so it may be best to wait until things calm down before straightening things out. EkoGraf (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from all topics covered by WP:ARBIPA for three months

You have been sanctioned per a discussion at AE

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]