User talk:Trigarta
March 2023
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Trigarta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, two days ago I was banned from editing and wanted to appeal for it to be removed and that I disagree with the ban decision. All my edits were in good faith, my edits did try to help improve the pages in question, I was competent and I did try to follow the wikipedia guidelines as much as possible. I will also state my underlying reasonings for the edits, issues and decisions I made in question.
An issue that was brought up for my ban was that I had failed to reach consensus on my 'massive changes' to Gandhara. Althought I agree that the changes were massive they were not for no reason and it wasnt as simple as me not being able to reach consensus. When I first made my edit it was undone by a user called uzek who had stated that it was an unexplained change, I then reverted the edit and further explained that this was clean up as there was lots of WP:RS, WP:unneccessaryimages, WP:toomuchdetail and was unneccesarily cluttered. He reverted the edit again and stated that I should discuss the changes before making the edit however when I read WP:PleaseDiscussOnTalkPageFirst, it stated that I did not need to follow this request and to 'be bold' since no one group of users owns a page. Another user then reverted the edit this time requesting that I do the edit in smaller sections with the reasonings which I then proceeded to do and for the next couple of days eveything was fine and no one had reverted or stated an issue. Then another user called sutyarashi had reverted the edit again under the same pretext of 'it needs to be discussed before editing' and me following the WP:PleaseDiscussOnTalkPageFirst guideline reverted the edit and remained bold as the WP stated. Even further he had even messaged on text asking about some changes which I then proceeded to expand on and ignored it, continuingto say it needed to be discussed. This had gone back and forth until 3 reverts had been used up and I did not revert after that. As part of the discussion on issues, it was stated I had reverted 7 times but I had assumed the 3RR rule is for between a specific person and me, not for multiple people, and also it would be negated from previous ones especially if the other users have had no issues after the discussion. The irony now is that the edits he has made recently has removed all of my edits on multiple pages such as 'Punjab' and 'History of Punjab' without using the discussions he had wanted for me and under the pretext of being poorly sourced when that isnt true and in my opinion violates WP:reveronlywheneneccessary and is bordering WP:vandalism which he had stated against me. My edits for Gandhara had been made in good faith and if you check the history you can see I had listed all of my edits reasonings and wasnt just removals for no reason. This has been extremelely frustrating as my main goal is to improve all Punjab related history as can be seen before the removal of my content and if you can see my frustration through the comments I would hope you can try sympathising.
Another issue against me for my ban was my 'mischaracterisation of sources in the Kamboja page' and my 'insults to a user'. The insult in question was when I stated 'Your ignorance and WP:Povpushing is remarkable', I do not agree that me stating this was an insult, my intention was not to the abuse the user but to highlight his behaviour which I thought was being displayed. This was stated in response to him continuously neglecting indo-aryan aspects of the Kambojas and failing to mention them whilst continously removing my additions, although I do agree should have remained calmer and not of even mentioned the word ignorance. Most of my sources have been added under the assumption that the author was a subject matter expert and I had read their biographies/info before adding them. My 'mischaracterisation of sources in the Kamboja page' was when I stated that his source POV pushes, although I agree that perhaps I may have been wrong in this aspect in stating this, this wasnt reflected in my edits except maybe when I had added the word 'supposedly' before the phrase 'they practiced zoroastrianism' however this wasn't in my opinion a mischaracterisation as I had not wrongly described the source they provided, as it states they practiced zoroastrianism based on a 'connection' and so it could not be said with definiteness. I have also been accused by the user in question that I was POVpushing however my intentions for edits were in good faith as I seeked to provide fair weight also the Indo-aryan side which was being neglected in my opinion. Another accusation was that I was plagiarising however this had recently become known to me and after a discussion on his talk page I had resolved this issue and placed the wording in quotes but this was still brought up against me in the discussion which I feel was wrong. With these pieces of information in mind I hope you can understand my reasonings for my decisions and remove the ban, and also undo the user 'sutyarashi's edits removing my previous content which I feel violates wiki guidelines in which he also states in his edits that me being a banned user is enough to remove my edits. If any other information is needed or questions to be asked please feel free to do so. Thanks, Trigarta
Decline reason:
You are blocked, not banned, there is a difference. This request is too long to read, please write a request of at most two short paragraphs. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2023 (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.
I meant banned from editing om English Wikipedia articles. Also should I just edit my previous request or make a new one below?
Trigarta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, two days ago I was banned from editing and wanted to appeal for it to be removed. All my edits were in good faith, my edits made were intentioned to help improve the pages in question and I did try to follow the wikipedia guidelines as much as possible. (This is the shortened version, also I didnt know whther to edit the prev one or make a new one) An issue brought up for my block was that I failed to reach consensus on my 'massive changes' to Gandhara. Though I agree that the changes were massive, they were not for no reason and it wasnt that I couldn’t reach consensus. When I first made my edit it was undone stating that it was an unexplained change, I reverted the edit and explained that this was clean up as there was lots of WP:RS, WP:toomuchdetail and was cluttered. He reverted the edit again and stated that I should discuss the changes before making the edit however WP:PleaseDiscussOnTalkPageFirst stated that I didnt need to follow this request and to 'be bold' as no group of users owns a page so I reverted following the WP. Another user reverted the edit, requesting that I do the edit in smaller sections with reasonings which I proceeded to do and for the next few days no one had reverted/stated an issue. Then another user, sutyarashi, had reverted the edit under the same pretext of 'it needs to be discussed before editing' and following the WP guideline on talk page discussion, I reverted the edit and remained bold as the WP stated. He had also messaged on talk asking about some changes I made which I then proceeded to expand on but he ignored it, continuing to say it needed to be discussed. This had gone back and forth until 3 reverts were done. As part of the discussion, it stated I had reverted 7 times, but I assumed the 3RR rule is for between a specific person and me, not for multiple people, and that it would be negated especially if other users have had no issues after the edits. The irony now is that the edits he has made recently has removed all of my edits on 'Punjab' and 'History of Punjab' without using the discussions he had wanted for me and stating they were poorly sourced which is incorrect. My edits for Gandhara had been made in good faith and if you check the history you can see I had listed all of my edits reasonings and wasn’t just removals for no reason. My main goal was to improve all Punjab related pages as can be seen on the edit histories of Punjab and history of Punjab and what was added wasn’t to disrupt the pages e.g. whenever a user requested further sources or rewriting I always did as seen on the edit history. Another issue against me for my block was my 'mischaracterisation of sources in the Kamboja page' and my 'insults to a user'. The insult was when I stated 'Your ignorance and WP:Povpushing is remarkable', I do not agree that me stating this was an insult, my intention was not to the abuse the user but to highlight his behaviour which I thought was being displayed and was becoming frustrating. This was stated in response to him continuously neglecting indo-aryan aspects of the Kambojas whilst continously removing my additions, although I do agree should have remained calmer and not of even mentioned the word ignorance. Most of my sources have been added under the assumption that the author was a subject matter expert and I had read their biographies/info before adding them to check this. My 'mischaracterisation of sources in the Kamboja page' was when I stated that his source POV pushes, although I agree that perhaps I may have been wrong in stating this, this wasn’t reflected in my edits. I have also been accused by the user in question that I was POVpushing however my intentions for edits were in good faith as I seeked to provide fair weight also to the Indo-aryan side which was being neglected to me. Another accusation was that I was plagiarising however this WP had recently become known to me and after a discussion on his talk page I had resolved this issue and placed the wording in quotes but this was still brought up against me in the discussion which I feel was wrong. With this information in mind I hope you understand my reasonings for my decisions and remove the ban. If there are any other questions please ask. Thank you
Decline reason:
And then, without waiting for an answer, you ... reposted pretty much the same request.
Sigh ...
Either your English isn't as good as it seems to be, or (to me, more likely), you aren't good at following directions or you have impulse control problems. Or you just have serious people issues, as the whole passage of your request where you vigorously contest the idea that calling another user "ignorant" in so many words could be seen as insulting would suggest.
Either way I think you have severe competence issues that you really need to sit down and have a long hard good think about before you write another request. Because if it's the same as this one, I would very strongly urge the reviewing admin to revoke your access to this page after declining, so we can have done with all this without waiting for you get bored and get the hint and review the requests of people who might be worth it to Wikipedia to unblock. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2023 (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.
Trigarta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, I just wanted to find out why my edits in 'Punjab' and'history of punjab' were reverted. I checked the wikipedia rules and it states that it should only be reverted if its deemed as vandalism or as disruptive editing and my edits were not unconstructive as they were sourced with the pages stated for verifiability and were made to help improve the pages quality and information provided which, if you decide to check, can be seen and so I feel like this revert was unneccesary and ill intentioned. please may my edits be reverted back after considweration, thank you
?
Decline reason:
This seems to be a complaint about your edits being reverted, not an unblock request. Spicy (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2023 (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.
That account was not mine. @331dot ?
- There is a vandal who attempts to trick people into evading their block and impersonates an admin to do so. A real admin would never make such a statement. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Trigarta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Over a month since my ban from editing, I have spent the time thinking about the mistakes I made and what I could have done better to avoid this situation from happening to begin with. My edits whilst I have been on wikipedia were not intended to be disruptive as I have a strong passion for informing people on the history of Punjab so if anyone suspects me of this behaviour then I would like to apologise and will ensure that I double check edits to avoid it from potentially being posted as I understand how important it is to ensure that edits aren't disruptive and that pages continue to improve. I would also like to apologise for my brash comment to a user when I called him ignorant, I know that I should have been calm and refrained from this type of verbal abuse, so I again apologise and agree that it will not ever happen again. Another complaint users have stated is my lack of ability to reach consenus, after re-reading the procedures for consensus, 3RR etc I know that I will follow them fully to avoid a situation like the one about the 'Kamboja' page from occurring again and to also make sure disputes about edits do not escalate. If there is anything else that I have been suspected of doing wrong I apologise and will guarantee that it will be avoided if given a second chance. Thank you for considering my request.
Decline reason:
Creating the block-evading sockpuppet User:Tomaras12345 was not wise; you'll need to address that too. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:03, 16 May 2023 (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.
Yes, I take full responsibility for attempting to sockpuppet and apologise for this behaviour, I agree it wasn't smart and was reckless so again I apologise for breaking the guidline here. I have re-read over the rules and guidelines and have spent some time away from wiki to think about my actions. I agree nothing of this sort will happen again and promise to edit as close to the guidelines as possible if given the opportunity for a second chance in being able to edit.
- Edits like the one above consisting simply of "?" aren't going to speed up when your block is reviewed. I know you've been waiting a long time, but the backlog of requests is long. I am sorry but you will simply have to wait your turn, however long that takes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Should I make a new request including the new info?
Trigarta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
(Addressing sockpuppet behaviour which was requested previously) Yes, I take full responsibility for attempting to sockpuppet and apologise for this behaviour, I agree it wasn't smart and was reckless so again I apologise for breaking the wikipedia guidelines. I have re-read over the rules and have spent some time away from wiki to think about my actions. I agree nothing of this sort will happen again and agree to edit in line with guidelines as much as possible, if given the opportunity for a second chance in being able to edit.
Decline reason:
The ANI thread suggests a much deeper level of competence issues with identification and use of sources than what is apologized for in the prior unblock requests. signed, Rosguill talk 22:07, 8 June 2023 (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.