PeaceThruPramana26
Please stop edit warring against MOS:JOBTITLES at Foreign Secretary. JOBTITLES requires that titles like the one in the lede sentence be lowercase. Please read that guideline as it will explain your confusion. If you continue to revert this application of a clearly established guideline, I will refer you to WP:ANI. Wallnot (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think you even read the MOS or you'd know that 'Foreign Secretary' denotes a title and thus is meant to be capitalised. I can see by your own talk page and userpage history, this is something that multiple users such as GibbsNotGibbs have attempted to correct you on, but you seem to react hostility. Perhaps it is best then that you bring in an intervening moderator, because at this point, any attempts to revert the capitalisation should be seen as vandalism and will be interpreted as such by me. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you've looked through my edit history, you'll note that there is a strong consensus behind my interpretation of JOBTITLES, and users like GibbsNotGibbs were all ultimately corrected. If you disagree, please start a discussion at the article talk page. See WP:BRD. You cannot simply continue to edit war in favor of your interpretation of the guideline without discussing it with other users at the relevant place. Doing so would be considered disruptive editing. Thanks, Wallnot (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
February 2022 edit
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to RT (TV network). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please do not cite an academic source that is completely irrelevant to the content that it is cited for, as you did with No Illusions in Special:Diff/1073677725. It gives readers and other editors, especially ones that do not have access to the source, the false impression that the content is better-supported than it actually is. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 07:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I just realized that you referenced a different edition of the book than the one I have access to. I apologize for the incorrect warning, and invite you to provide a quotation (and page number) from your edition of the book to substantiate your claim at Talk:RT (TV network) § E-International Relations in lead section. — Newslinger talk 10:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't accept your apology. You're an administrator and should know better before jumping to such hasty, pre-drawn conclusions (which incidentally, seem to work in one direction). This sort of harassment is ridiculous, and for what? An edit? PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on BBC World Service. 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. — Newslinger talk 18:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Please refer to the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for a recommended way to propose controversial edits to a Wikipedia article. — Newslinger talk 18:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
You keep this targeted harassment up, and I swear I'm bringing you to the complaint board. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 12 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited El Salvador, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cacao. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message edit
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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
ANI notice edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Not sure about PeaceThruPramana26. Thank you. Graham87 10:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Blocked per ANI edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Block appeal edit
PeaceThruPramana26 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It appears that an edit war with an administrator has led to a ban on their part based on an accusation that I am not here to "build an encyclopedia". But I would implore anyone to investigate my edits and you tell me if they haven't added improvement towards Wikipedia: that is to say, I am here building an encyclopedia, and improving articles, and doing so in a decent manner. I do not meet any of the criteria for WP:NOTHERE under which I was unilaterally and arbitrarily banned.
Based on an edit here in the article for Middle Passage, I have all but been accused of acting in a misleading and racist agenda, but no credible evidence has actually been given that my edit was malicious and disruptive, let alone invalid (I honestly think it should stay and I defend it even now, as I stand by all my edits given that it was based on valid scholarship from a credible source–ironically who is Jewish. I would like not to think he would be banned from Wikipedia for citing his own peer-reviewed research as well?).
I have been accused of being a "right-wing" extremist and a "fascist", yet ironically (not that it matters) I have Marxist leanings and believe in the universal fraternity of mankind; not that my ethnicity matters (and I will not disclose), but it might surprise @Graham87. I can understand why some edits may seem to appear biased, but I have a wide, varied eclectic taste in subjects, and my only real bias I can readily admit to is that I am a Hindu and thus may be biased in that fashion; But alas,
Ergo, it should be imperative upon the banning administrator to provide evidence of their insinuations: If they have the hunch that I'm a sockpuppet, they should at least have a credible factual basis in doing so, rather than accusing me of such, shouldn't they (let alone if they question my competency to edit).
I think if I was to be given a ban, I would at *least* want it not to be such a unilateral decision done without a factual basis, and have it reviewed in such a way that doesn't merely dismiss me for the crime of editing articles in patterns that an admin doesn't see to their liking. I may have been initially rude to Graham87 after their accusations, which I regret, but I was attacked in very poor faith and no attempt was made to understand my position or reason with me, or consider why I might react initially the way I did; in fact, I was inferred of being a sock-puppet for merely saying something that they considered was "too advanced" for their liking for a user with my number of edits. I am willing to consider this all a misunderstanding, which honestly, I think it is; But this sort of thing is not really acceptable
TL;DR: I was banned on the accusation that I'm not here to improve Wikipedia in violation of WP:NOTHERE and had a bunch of accusations made against me based merely on a suspicion, and I think the evidence stands self-evidently in the face of such an accusation. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In reading the information at ANI, I can't disagree with its conclusions. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
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.
How do you figure? It doesn't seem like my appeal was taking very seriously, seeing as there wasn't even the least slight attempt at considering my point of view. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
PeaceThruPramana26 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
On my previous appeal, I was merely told that "In reading the information at ANI, I can't disagree with its conclusions" and yet my entire appeal was a careful refutation of the conclusions reached by the banning administrator point by point, so no attempt was even made to square or reason with my logic as per the previous appeal, let alone explain the reasoning behind me being here purely to be "disruptive" when I have demonstrated very carefully and clearly (with evidence) that I've contributed much to here. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In reading the information at ANI, I can't disagree with its conclusions. Also, if there were any doubt, the rants you have posted to this page following the block would have removed any such doubt. You either can't or won't edit in a constructive spirit. Another such unblock request which serves only to support the block may well lead to your talk page access being removed, to prevent yet more waste of administrators' time. JBW (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
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.
PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe I contributed quite a fair bit to Wikipedia. to merely dismiss me as a troll when I've spent literally hours here to trying to make this a better place is not only insulting, it's absolutely, prima facie wrong. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
To reiterate: Am I really being banned from wikipedia with an account that is almost a year old because I made an admin mad during an edit war dispute? That is honestly what it seems like from my perspective. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Block Appeal (i.e, banned for linking to legitimate sources) edit
PeaceThruPramana26 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am accused of ranting, but there is no actual ranting (at least, not until now there wasn't). I was accused of editing in poor faith, but now I see that the only poor faith accusations are made by the admins who work together in a clannish, parochial manner: I regret ever wasting my time for this website, and I will instruct my follows to do the same so as to contribute to the decline in its credibility (since let's be honest, no one really takes it seriously anymore--this might be part of the reason why)
The source I used was valid: The admin who blocked me must be a blind fool, considering that it was published by Cambridge, a state-approved source. He seems to be motivated by ideological reasons, as to what, I cannot fathom, but nonetheless he seemed to be acting on behalf of some conviction that wasn't motivated by improving an encyclopaedia: thankfully, that revealed to me the futility in trying to play by your bureaucracy.
there is no point in being polite to poor-faith actors: You honestly don't deserve the benefit of any doubt.
I will be ignoring this page from here on now. Honestly, you can go to hell. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Requests with personal attacks are not considered. Also seems to be withdrawn anyway. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
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.