User talk:Wareon

Wareon, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Wareon! 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 Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow! Congratulations Waeron Weeabo-kun2198 (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan

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.

Note that North East Delhi riots is one of the many articles covered by these sanctions. Doug Weller talk 11:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:2020 Delhi riots. This is in regard to your response to Fowler & Fowler. Please remember that discretionary sanctions cover talk pages as well - they cover all Wikipedia pages. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non admin closure of AFD Thakur Shivam Singh

Regarding your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thakur Shivam Singh, an administrator reviewed sockpuppetry and explicitly left it open as the nomination had merit irrespective of the nominator being a sockpuppet. Please revert your closure. Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: See WP:CSK #4. That admin saw comment of an account who supported deletion but soon that account was blocked for socking too. Wareon (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the the admin {User:MER-C) explicitly left it open, and the nomination does indeed have merit as the subject does not appear to meet WP:NPOL. So, please revert your closure.-- Whpq (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Misty has been blocked as a confirmed sock. BabbaQ (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breast Tax

If you have an issue with my close and feel that it does not reflect consensus, please take it up at the proper channel at WP:DRV. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Kashmir conflict. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

And just as a FYI, you shouldn't mark non-minor edits as minor ones. "Minor edit" means only edits that correct spelling or obvious grammatical errors, not ones that change the meaning of the text as was the case here; see Help:Minor edit.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was automatically marked as "minor edit" because the revert was helped by WP:TWINKLE. Wareon (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see—sorry for the misunderstanding. Have a nice Tuesday!--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for maintaining the integrity of the Wikipedia. Zakaria1978 (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalsim on Shambuka wiki page

Please explain the basis on which you removed many of the referenced scholarly sources on the wiki page till date, to push a narrative with one-sided point of view. You will have to explain the removal of references including but not limited to, The Raghuvaṃśa of Kalidasa, 'Perumal Thirumozhi' in Naalayira Divya Prabandham, and Uttararamacarita by Bhavabhuti.

When you want to only say it's an interpolation, provide the academic source which says it's an interpolation and the period during which interpolation happened. Based on the authors and their scholarship, this 'interpolation' theory can be one of the views but not 'the sole view', unless you bring evidence to categorically disregard all the relevant academic works by other authors.

That will be more constructive than removing all references which don't align with your point of view, and threatening other editors of 'blocking from editing' so you can reinstate your point of view.

Phule lulu (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dayum Waeron I Think You Should Read The Bhagavad Gita And Chill Homie Weeabo-kun2198 (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content without adequate explanation

Referring to repeated deletion of adequately referenced content on Shambuka page.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing.

To both you and @Phule lulu:; this edit war needs to stop. Phule, including a pages long quote from a book as you have done in this version is not how we do things here. Please read through Wikipedia:Quotations and note that it says brief excerpts that can sometimes help. Here, in the version you prefer, the quotation you are including outnumbers the remainder of the prose of the article nearly 5:1. This is most emphatically NOT a brief excerpt. Wareon, I am not convinced there is a copyright violation. Both of you need to be talking this out, preferably on the article's talk page at Talk:Shambuka. Both of you need to stop accusing each other of various things, and both of you need to drop the sticks and start working together. See Wikipedia:Five_pillars#WP:5P4. Continuing to edit war is NOT a solution. It's blatantly evident that both of you are quite willing to revert the other without engaging in real discussion. If it continues, I would not be surprised to see both of you blocked for it as the edit warring is itself disruptive and needs to be stopped. Please, discuss calmly. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOT3RR. Copyright violation can be reverted without regards to 3RR. Wareon (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. Discussion, however, is still critical. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your one of the change on Shambuka page violate WP:OR and WP:FICTREF

The edit [1] made by you on Shambuka page violate WP:OR and WP:FICTREF guidelines. The source mentions that "Most scholars view it as an interpolation". It doesn't presents it as a fact and only mentions about the view of the scholars whereas you by saying "Shambuka is an interpolation in Ramayana" is trying to present it as a fact rather than view of scholars. So, I would be rephrasing the line. Jasksingh (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"view of the scholars" is treated as a fact especially when "most scholars" agree and there are no scholars cited by you who would disagree. Stop trying to find loopholes in policies and read WP:FRINGE. Wareon (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given reference of any wikipedia policy to support your claim that what most scholars beleive can be represented as a fact. Whereas WP:NPOV policy clearly says "Avoid stating opinions as facts". Please see [2]. So, other than WP:OR and WP:FICTREF, your edit is also a violation WP:NPOV policy. My edit was neutral in the sense that it mentioned the interpolation point but presented it as a opinion of most scholars rather than a fact. If you repeatedly keep reverting my constructive edits then I will have to report you to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Jasksingh (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, I'm Vishwajeet103, in BB Lal's page, the critcisim of historical revisionism is citing 2 news articles which violates wiki original research policy. The news article themselves have taken from wiki's previous version him (which i editted) as hindutva historical revisionist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishwajeet103 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:B. B. Lal that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. diff "If you cannot understand this then you have a clear WP:CIR issue." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on B. B. Lal; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You are incorrectly providing inaccurate information. Please provide legitimate sources of information. Otherwise you might be unable to edit.Brian89014 (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point 5353

Hi, please have a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Point_5353#Third_opinion. Your help is requested. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing details relating to government-ordered censorship of criticism

How are infringements of press freedom not relevant to the article? ViperSnake151 Talk 06:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts

Please stop. As I have said about 70 times, Kashmorwiki is a good-faith editor. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hello, Wareon,

Yes, Wikipedia has rules about how to handle edits by sockpuppets, but do not make eradicating another editor's work your focus in your editing. It can seem petty and your focus should be on improving the project, not eliminating other editors' contributions. Tagging page creations that are ONLY the work of the sockpuppet (with no substantial contributions by other editors) is fine but don't go around reverting edits. Discussion page comments can be struck out if necessary but it's best to just let discussion closers to come to their own conclusions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do, but WP:BANEVASION notes that all - good or bad - edits by sock puppets can be reverted. While unreplied comments can be removed, the replied comments can be struck. I just looked around and found this issue with regards to this particular case has been already discussed and think the above inquiry by Chicdat and you have been already addressed by other users on WP:AN. Wareon (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. I noticed that you G5'd several articles written by Kashmorwiki which were subsequently challenged. Immediately thereafter an IP continued G5'ing 11 of the articles you already tagged along with other articles of the user blocked for sockpuppetry. VV 13:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincentvikram: I am sure enough users including admins who deleted his articles find it necessary to act in compliance with G5. Just because some IP is aware of G5, that doesn't means he is me. That said, I have rather seen a sock puppet removing G5 tag. Reality contradicts you. Wareon (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

cool, which is why this is a good faith notice. Best! VV 18:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Joshua Jonathan/Breast tax

A tag has been placed on Joshua Jonathan/Breast tax requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested in offering a WP:30 here?

Talk:Nazi_chic#Merge_from_Nazi_imagery_in_Thailand? This has been waiting a year to be noticed by more folks... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your recent edit on Tejas Thackeray

I had reverted your recent edit because Tejas Thackeray is Notable person as Indian conservationist and wildlife researcher. One species of gecko(Cnemaspis thackerayi) is named after him as a recognition of his contributions to Systematic Zoology most notably by discovering and naming more than dozens of fresh water crab species in Maharashtra. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional article

Kalaripayattu is used as a promotional platform by its practitioners, with hyperbolic claims, original research, unsourced claims, and POV. Makes extraordinary claims like it's 3000 year old, simply using unreliable and circular references, not WP:HISTRS. There are not much scholarly sources, but there is a peer reviewed one of Philip B. Zarilli who received Ph.D for it, according to him Kalaripayattu is at least 12th century CE old. At the time, the article was edited by User:Kalariwarrior (who admits as a practitioner in their user page), along with a toxic sockpuppeteer User:Adhithya Kiran Chekavar who comes in various IPs and socks, whose only tool was personal attacks in talk to push his propaganda to promote his Thiyyar caste and POV beliefs of the martial art. You can check the talk page discussions: Creator parameter in infobox, Poor sourcing, misinterpreting citations, and neutrality issues, and Page cleanup and flag removal. The article was extended protected because of the sockpuppetry of Adhithya, but it came as an advantage to them as their version stayed.--157.46.152.212 (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

This article is about the translation literature works of Quran in Bengali language.

Not about the list of every language. জাবিরটটক (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Why "Quran translations into Hebrew language" page has been nominated for deletation? জাবিরটটক (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khalistan Movement

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Khalistan Movement, 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.Shubhdeep Sandhu (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Shambuka

A discussion about the lead sentence is on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Shambuka. Request your inputs. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Guidelines

This edit makes the conversation on the talk page impossible to follow. My reply here now looks like it was made to your comment here, when it was made in response to this comment.

Please revert your edit and avoid edits that disrupt the flow of conversation. See WP:TPG. Carleas (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Shambuka

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Shambuka. 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]