User talk:Ifidont

Ifidont, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ifidont! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like TheAafi (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ayurveda, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ayurveda. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please note that you may only revert once per 24 hours on this article. You have now restored material more than once. Please revert your last edits or you may be blocked. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Ayurveda) for a period of 1 month for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

rather was a bit confused userIfidont (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2021 (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.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Ayurveda. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Note that the page has the watning: ... if you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article, your comment will be removed without reply if it does not give a policy-based reason why these terms are incorrect. This warning clearly applied to your post and so was removed. Do not revert it. Any further disruption will be reported. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Dosha, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph Thank you so much. This whole process is kinda challenging! Thanks again for guiding me.. :)Ifidont (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block extension

I have blocked you from Talk:Ayurveda, since you either didn't read the FAQs and links, or you did read them and chose to ignore them. Black Kite (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I totally understand. Anyways I will avoid Mobile edits which made matters worse! Oops..Didn't know 3RR existed too.Ifidont (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your problem is that you do not follow WP:NPOV. In your next unblock request, you should address this. PhilKnight (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2021 (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.

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Ifidont and alternative medicine. Thank you. — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alerts

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 complementary and alternative medicine. 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.

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 pseudoscience and fringe science. 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.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers Please help. What edits are permissible in the page Ayurveda?Ifidont (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not qualified to answer that for you. If I'm reading your blocks correctly, there are no edits that would be permissible for you at Ayurveda or Talk:Ayurveda at this time. My advice would be to focus on other topic areas for a while. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers In the page Ayurveda, It says - You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:Your username or IP address is blocked from doing this. You may still be able to do other things on this site, such as editing certain pages. --I am asking this since there are edits required in History section of this page,as mentioned in template message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifidont (talk • contribs) 06:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point. You are blocked from editing the page, for 1 month, for violations of edit warring, and adding content against prior consensus, and ignoring the limitations and warnings set out in its talk page. Whatever edits you want to make to the history sections, it has to wait until your block expires. After that I suggest posting on its talk page first before making any edits to the main article. — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add, I'd also advise:

Not to edit anything in the alternate medicine related articles (see the two discretionary alerts above)
If you still want to edit, you'll need to follow Wikipedia's rules very strictly. Being a new user, I don't expect you to know about them in great detail, that's why I advise not to edit them
And to participate in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ifidont and alternative medicine thread on the Administrator's Noticeboard, and provide your responses. That could help your cause.

— DaxServer (talk to me) 07:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Ayurveda moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Glossary of Ayurveda, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Liz ^{Read! Talk!} That was a relief! Infact started with the draft page when something went worng! 😢 Ifidont (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

Please read the above link. I've reverted all of your recent edits as they are wildly promotional and violate our requirement for content to be neutrally written. I'd encourage you to stop editing in areas involving medicine entirely as you're really getting close to a topic ban. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ PRAXIDICAE🌈 I understand where you're coming from but I was adding information on topics in alternative medicine with references from verifiable sources such as books. For example "McDowell F, American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. Educational foundation. The Source Book of Plastic Surgery. Baltimore, MD:Williams & Wilkins; 1977" and this is verifiable indeed. I am participating in WikiProject:Alternative Medicine and trying to fill in info that is not currently available without pushing POV. yes! I accept my works are on my subject interest while abiding by the rules of Wikipedia .I was writing about Sushruta in Rhinoplasty. what's the issue here? Also, You have reverted my addition in Alternative medicine which asks to enter therapies. It took me hours, as a newcomer to add new therapies to the list linking it to the existing wiki pages like Tarpana.This is so damaging to the work intended at WikiProject in alternative medicine! Please someone advise. I started editing in this platform since I felt that details of alternative medicine was in sufficent or unverifiable. Now even after working for hours, I feel editors like me will easily quit the forum, due to these revert damaging the whole day's work. I wish to stop it here. It is difficult rather impossible to be bold in a group even when few exert their powers rubbishing all the intended good work of expanding the encyclopedia. I rather quit than editing only pages with spelling errors. Thanks to all good ones that helped me through the process Ifidont (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Glossary of Ayurveda

Hello, Ifidont. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Glossary of Ayurveda, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Glossary of Ayurveda 2

Hello, Ifidont. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Glossary of Ayurveda 2, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]