User talk:Crashed greek

Archives (Index)

2021/April 2021/July 2021/October 2022/January 2022/September 2023/August

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hi. Regarding the content you removed in this edit, do you have a concern the content was nonfactual (i.e. you attempted to source it but failed), or did you delete it solely because it was unreferenced? Ljleppan (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article for speedy deletion because it contains multiple copyright violations. Every time you save a change to Wikipedia, you are verifying that you are giving the content into CC-BY-SA. This is not legally permissable if you have copied text from copyright websites and pasted into here. This sort of conduct can get you blocked from editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman Would you mind clearing up for me why you think it contains multiple copyright violations? I'm not seeing them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: I took a second look and yes, the article presents them as attributed block quotes. The Earwig tool doesn't show this formatting. This is my mistake; I've struck my comments above. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned in the edit summary [1] that the whole article text is taken from parent article version [2]. It is just a spin out from that already existing wikipedia article. Crashed greek (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was no problem with your spinout; you did exactly as required. The tool I used (Earwig) to assess the copyright violation didn't depict your block quotes and I didn't bother to double-check the article's formatting against Earwig's results. The deletion and copyright violation tags have been removed. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Kargil war, did not appear to be constructive and have 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. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain for reverting. You may get banned by the rule WP:3RR. Crashed greek (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Horse with a horn has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 26 § Horse with a horn until a consensus is reached. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Grabup. I noticed that you recently removed content from Dhruv Rathee without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Sources like #6, #16 mention him as Indian Youtuber, also it is commonly known that he is an Indian YouTuber. I don’t know why you removed that without checking all sources? GrabUp - Talk 06:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grabup, please dont add back content without adding citations. Crashed greek (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crashed greek: Already pointed to you sources, don’t you see? #6 and #16. GrabUp - Talk 07:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ Grabup So you agreed that they are not there, and you did not bother adding them, so you should apologise for posting message here. Crashed greek (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary to cite that, Everyone knows he is an Indian, Also, you should check all cited sources before removing a small thing. GrabUp - Talk 08:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely that he is no longer an Indian citizen. And burden of proof is on you. Crashed greek (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crashed greek: Why is the burden of proof on me? There is no basis for your opinion that it is ‘likely he is no longer an Indian.’ There are sources supporting that he is an Indian citizen. If you believe he may have changed his citizenship without any evidence, then it is your burden to prove why and how you speculate that he changed his citizenship. GrabUp - Talk 03:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources say he was an Indian citizen back then. So after his marriage to a German citizen, the burden of proof on you to bring a recent source mentioning his nationality. I just have to remove the sentence, i would have burden of proof on myself only if i want to mention that he is no longer an Indian citizen. Crashed greek (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crashed greek: Does marrying a German woman change citizenship? If there are no reliable sources stating that he changed his citizenship and there are sources indicating that he is an Indian, then it is not appropriate to remove the sentence without consensus. You are saying, “It is likely that he is no longer an Indian citizen,” and also saying, “I would have the burden of proof on myself only if I want to mention that he is no longer an Indian citizen.” You claimed in the first comment that it is likely he is no longer an Indian citizen. To back your claim, there should be some reliable source. Without reliable sources or consensus, you can’t just remove it. GrabUp - Talk 10:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crashed greek: You said, “So after his marriage to a German citizen, the burden of proof is on you to bring a recent source mentioning his nationality.” Dhruv Rathee was married in November 2021, and here is a reliable source from 28 February 2024, just 4 months ago, that mentions him as Indian. I think you are now convinced right? GrabUp - Talk 11:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That free press journal is not very reliable, it has market share less than 1% or so. And he hasnt voted in the last general elections, despite coming to India during election, that adds to suspicion that he is no longer an Indian citizen. So I still think you are wrong, but i leave it here. Crashed greek (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting does not mean he is not Indian. In the 2024 general election, 65.79% of eligible voters voted, and 34.21% of eligible Indian voters did not vote. If we take your logic, then nearly half of Indians would be considered non-Indian. Also, there is no proof that he did not vote. Not showing the voting ink publicly does not mean a person did not vote. Your arguments are just baseless. GrabUp - Talk 05:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are talking as if I have the burden of proof. Despite being on wikipedia for a long time. I cant assume good faith any more. Crashed greek (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Aviation tax (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. PadFoot (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing the backdoor deletion is not considered as edit war. @User:PadFoot2008 You can use WP:AFD if you want to delete an article. Crashed greek (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PadFoot (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Ratnahastin (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you made a deplorable personal attack and casted bad faith aspersions on Padfoot2008 [3], I suggest you retract it, ethnicity/nationality based personal attacks and unsubstantiated aspersions are not permitted at all. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not ethnic personal attack as you have mentioned. It is nationality instead. Crashed greek (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy doesnt prohibit the mentioning of the nationality. Crashed greek (talk) Crashed greek (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's perfectly fine to mention someone's nationality. What isn't fine is personal attacks. Please don't accuse other editors of bias like that. We're all required to follow WP:NPOV regardless of our backgrounds. -- asilvering (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is behavioral guideline language:

Comment on content, not on the contributor or It's the edits that matter, not the editor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating.

You must comply with this guideline. Do not denigrate other editors based on their race, nationality, citizenship, ethnicity, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, level of education or career. Consider this a formal warning. Focus on content, not the contributor. Cullen328 (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I was not aware of this guideline. In fact I tried searching for any rules, seems no rule against it, but there is guideline about it. I dont talk about the person even during normal arguments outside wikipedia too, but this particular case looked like an exception to me. Crashed greek (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no exceptions. Attacks on other editors based on any personal characteristics are strictly forbidden. Other editors are your colleagues to be treated with respect, not to be treated as your enemies. Cullen328 (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the wikpedia guideline Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says: "Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply." With exceptions link pointing to WP:IAR. I did not disrespect nor denigrate anybody. Crashed greek (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you have absolutely no good reason to claim an exception in this case. Refrain from WP:WIKILAWYERING. If you behave this way again, you will be blocked. Is that clear, or do I need to tell you that even more emphatically? Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how hard to try to wriggle out of it, You being an Iranian you are likely to be biased is an utterly unacceptable thing to say to a colleague and you must never say anything like that again. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will keep that in mind. With this kind of administration, wikipedia is at the risk of getting banned in countries like India, as warned by a court recedntly. To be replaced by a clone website as it is open source. Crashed greek (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Wikipedia won't get banned if you are allowed to attack editors by speculating about their nationality? Ratnahastin (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

When you wrote With this kind of administration, wikipedia is at the risk of getting banned in countries like India, as warned by a court recedntly as if the laws of India require you to write things like You being an Iranian you are likely to be biased, then you are spouting ludicrous nonsense, and therefore you have been blocked for disruptive wikilawyering. You will never be permitted to attack other editors for their ethnicity or their nationality or any other ad hominem characteristics. If the government of India makes a reasonable request, then Wikipedia editors will pay attention. But if the government of India was to hypothetically insist that it is OK to write You being an Iranian you are likely to be biased, then Wikipedia editors worldwide would immediately reject that interference, even at the cost of being blocked, just as Wikipedia is blocked in China, and from time to time in Turkey.

So, the choice is yours. Abandon this form of disruptive editing, or face escalating blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didnt mean to say " as if the laws of India require you to write things like You being an Iranian you are likely to be biased" as you inferred, that would be straw man. Instead, it is my understanding that wikipedia administration makes a mountain of a molehill if any centrist or right wing editors do anything, and ban them using pretexts. Indian law doesnt allow the leftist propaganda using defamation, for which the high court case is going on. Hope I clarified my earlier statement. Crashed greek (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are clearly saying that "Indian law doesn't allow the leftist propaganda using defamation" then you are effectively saying that Indian law is pro-right wing when that is not true. You are just making things worse for yourself by making "a mountain of a molehill". Ratnahastin (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you abandon your comments that try to associate any editor with a political orientation or philosophy. Doing it in the way you are doing it is casting aspersions. If you don't just accept that it was wrong to say what you say and not try to come up with some irrelevant forms of self-defense, you will be digging yourself into an indefinite block hole that won't be easy to get out of. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]