User talk:Mr IndianCotton

Censor me but soon you will get censored.

Important Notice

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.

Doug Weller talk 13:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:Koenraad Elst, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok Mr IndianCotton (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Anti-Hindu sentiment. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Anti-Hindu sentiment, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr IndianCotton, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mr IndianCotton! 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 Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Your recent editing history at Anti-Hindu sentiment 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from editing all pages and discussion connected with India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan.

You have been sanctioned for persistent insertion of original research, use of unreliable sources or no sources at all, and tendentious editing.

This topic ban 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. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. Bishonen | tålk 10:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen and Doug Weller:, user has been disruptively editing on 2020 Bengaluru riots. Please take note. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False. I have quoted the actuall news links. Look properly. Mr IndianCotton (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "You are indefinitely banned from editing all pages and discussion connected with India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan" excludes " actuall news links."?Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is also true for Talk:Ayurveda (this edit), as another editor pointed out (here)... I won't file an WP:AE report at this time as it could be considered a gray area and this reminder may be enough. On the other hand the comment wasn't very constructive, other than helping to discover another flaw in Wikipedia: a company's page that reads like an advert and that fails to mention that its main claim to fame is a product that was withdrawn for being harmful... —Paleo Neonate – 11:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban above, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Woody (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Thanks for banning me and showing that prejudice and propoganda reigns supreme at Wikipedia, without reading properly about the drug I mentioned. Also on the same talk page there is an editor ( from 18 years on wikipedia) who personally accused an Ayurvedic doctor for being a scam but you people will not do anything about it since he is one of you. Rest assured I will make sure Wikipedia is destroyed and replaced by something sane. Thanks. Mr IndianCotton (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: this editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: I agree with this assessment, —Paleo Neonate – 22:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at 2020 Bangalore riots, you may be blocked from editing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is Anti Hindu

If all this is happening in era or recording live and still there is so much false content available and strictly defended, imagine the history records. Mr IndianCotton (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice regarding WP:BLPs

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

SerChevalerie (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:npa.[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks shows your intentions. Even well cited edits get removed. Mr IndianCotton (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr IndianCotton, your edit violated WP:BLPCRIME by naming the person who made the post. Further, you had no business even making edits to that article, considering your permanent topic ban from India-related articles. I'll also remind you that this topic ban extends to discussions on these articles, so you can either appeal the topic ban or stay away from topics even remotely related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, forever. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban on subjects pertaining to India, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

September 2020

Please retract the WP:BLP-violating comments from this comment of yours. Thank you. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

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.

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.

—Paleo Neonate – 04:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

After this comment, "Rest assured I will make sure Wikipedia is destroyed", etc, curiously posted in answer to a three-week old notice about a short block long since expired, I don't see why we should keep this editor around. Blocked per WP:NOTHERE, talkpage access revoked. Bishonen | tålk 19:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]