User talk:218.186.167.186

June 2023
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lawrence Bishnoi, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear ,

Why are you calling my sourced goodfaith edits at Lawrence Bishnoi vandalism? I'm sorry to say I am really disappointed with your terminology and discouraging actions. What a waste of time. Please collaborate in "iteratively" constructive and "mutually encouraging" manner.

I made thes following edits

Edit1: I introduced sub-heading to make the long "criminal actions" section more readable. At the end of this section, I also added 3 or 4 sourced sentences on the modus operandi of this criminal syndicate. You reverted it with the feedback that the edit is not constructive. You did not provide specifics, but I assume maybe you did not like me adding the subheadings. Sad.

Edit2: Since I thought, you don't like me adding subheading and relocating text under those settings, I retained your original structure ( i.e. I did not break down the long section into more readable smaller subsections with the self-descriptive headings). But, I still added 3 or 4 sentences at the end of the article about the modus operandi of this criminal gang.

Edit3: I found there was some stray text left due to the edit2. I removed it and I created the "see also" section with one bullet point Organised crime in India.

This is unfair to call my edits vandalism or unconstructive. Please review again carefully.

Please do this.

Option1: If you spend sufficient time to review my edits carefully to understand exactly what I've done, you may even like my edit1, if so then please retain it along with the "see also" section as created in edit3.

Option2: In case you don't want to retain my edit1, then at least please retain edit2 and edit3. You might find merit in them and please restore those. Please ask yourself, how can adding the sourced modus operandi of the gang be the vandalism and unconstructive? How can adding a relevant "see also" section be vandalism and unconstructive? I guess perhaps you were overworked, very tired and took a knee jerk action without spending much time to review and understand my edits. Everyone makes mistake, and it's okay to err as human because I make mistakes too.

You owe the following to all editors. If you are reverting someone's edits and calling them vandall etc, you have extra onus and responsibility to spend more time in reviewing their edits to understand them completely before you label them with such heavy words. If you spend sufficient time to understand my edits and retain the parts that you liked it would have taken less combine time from you and me in sending this messages. Productivity would improve if you adopt the collaborative approach. If you've been given authority please exercise it with due care, and spend sufficient time to review and not take knee-jerk actions. You owe more due diligence.

Please take in a good spirit, I hope you won't hold it against me. Thank you very much.

218.186.167.186 (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * As an uninvolved editor, I fully agree that went way overboard with the level 3 vandalism template. Also you seem to have false positive tripped an edit filter on Harsh Ka Tila, only thing I can think of is maybe that was the salt and pepper part. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 05:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear, thank you for the support as well as thd tip and guidance regarding the false edit filter. Re: Harsh Ka Tila article (a large and significant archaeological site with at least 8 archaeological periods, this stub type article needs expansion) and even Lawrance Bishnoi article, perhaps the problem is that I am making a large edit by introducing subsections, which might generate the false triggers for the admins. Instead of applying a large edit, I would try to make several smaller incremental edits. Lets see how it goes. Please guide me further, if the filters are triggered again. Apologies for causing this inconvenience to both of you. Thank you. 218.186.167.186 (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree with doing smaller edits, makes it easy to see what is changed so people don't take the edit the wrong way. Large edits get a bold +/- number and that coming from an IP can make people think it's vandalism. Don't get discouraged, and good on you for expanding articles!


 * Also, I fixed the formatting for your reply to me without changing any of your content. Add an extra colon for each reply to indent further (1 for me, 2 for you, 3 for me, 4 for you, etc), and each paragraph needs the same number of colons as the other one. I provided an example here by breaking this section down. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 06:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * IP, I labeled your edit vandalism for a few reasons. First, your first set of edits to the article were awful, and I reverted them without warning. Second, your second set of edits (2 consecutive edits) were far better, but my revert and your second edit of the two crossed in the night. In the first edit you screwed up section names at the bottom of the article and added my username to the article. My vandalism revert was based on that one edit. In the second edit you fixed that but the way the system worked, your both of your edits were reverted. Finally, that article is a magnet for vandals and disruptive editors, which is why it's on my watchlist. Anyway, I suggest you follow 's advice and make very small edits to the article. It's a sensitive WP:BLP, so be careful that any material you add is well crafted, reliably sourced, and not WP:UNDUE or non-neutral. Personally, if I were you, I'd spend my time on articles that are less controversial, but that's up to you. I apologize for the vandalism label.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * , thank you for the response and tips. I have reapplied the edit 2 & 3, hopefully both are clean this time. Please review, especially the text I added regarding the modus operandi of the gang. It is my first time to edit this article, seems there is some messy history of edits to that article which you know best. Hence, please feel free to rephrase or delete parts, etc of my new edits to ensure the end result is in line with what you want to maintain on the article. Thank you. 218.186.167.186 (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)