User talk:Bringtar/Archive 1

Disruptive editing
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is regarding your continued violation of WP:BLPCAT, WP:OR and WP:RS on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and List of converts to Islam from Hinduism and use of highly unreliable sources.

The source should be 100% clear that "x converted from x to x" and if the person is alive then they should admit it themselves.

You will get blocked if you persisted with this WP:DE. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ with your opinion. All the sources I added are already being used in numerous other Wikipedia articles then why I cannot use these? I even requested you to specify which sources you think were unreliable so that I can improve. Bringtar (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no 'opinion', only facts. You must not differ with my policy-based interpretation. The entire edit was tendentious per the policies I noted above that's why it was fully reverted also when two other editors made it before you. Repeating their edit won't make it right. The onus is on you to prove how your copy-pasta is correct than demand me for explaining why I reverted your problematic edits.
 * Aside from this all, can you also name your other account? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I saw from your talk page that you have been warned several times already for disrupting editing and you were also advised here to discuss on the talk page. You did not even responded to my message on your talk page here. I am requesting you again to discuss on the article's talk page here instead of deleting my contributions. Bringtar (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

DS Alert
Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Final warning
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page.

Your own calculation which is not supported by the sources (see WP:OR) that "all Indian converts to Christianity/Islam = Hindu converts to Christianity/Islam" is getting disruptive. Edit warring won't get you anywhere, nor will misleading edit summaries. Capitals00 (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you be kind enough to show at least 1 misleading edit summary I made? I bet you did not even clicked any of the references I used. I do not even know you so why you are giving me a final warning? Bringtar (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Accidental ping
Sorry I accidentally pinged you to my sandbox when I was saving a modification to my post I was abandoning. I'm not asking for your attention at my sandbox. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, I thought it was a glitch. --Bringtar (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Please do not change sourced information of individuals in List of converts to Hinduism from Islam article as you please. Reasons like living person but no self-admission about their conversion, might be a hoax, failed to verify he converted from Islam to Hinduism, failed verification and no were it says she was converted from Islam to Hinduism these are mostly assumptions and personal opinions. We've used most possible and available sources to prove the conversion of the individuals. If you are not satisfied with the information, please create a section in the talk page to discuss about the issues with rest of the users. As you can see most of the people given in the table have been sourced with more than one link. If you can provide more reliable sources, that would be helpful. Thank you! Naveen Ramanathan (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

List of conversions
I am sending this to everyone involved in the dispute. Can we please all stop adding or removing entries from these lists, unless there is an obvius BLP issue (which for most of them, there isn't). Please let editors who are neutral on the subjects look at them instead. I have made a start on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and have re-added some entries with sources, and not re-added them where sources are flimsy. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Black Kite (talk) okay and thank you. Please also do check my additions to List of converts to Islam from Hinduism. --Bringtar (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Archiving
Would you like me to set up archiving on your talk page? I can set it up so that it happens automatically when sections are a week old. Some of the messages you have received are important, and it would be best to keep them in an archive. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Toddy1, yes that will be very helpful if you can please do. Thanks in advance. --Bringtar (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have set up archiving to automatically archive topics that are 7 days old, but to leave one topic left.


 * I am not sure if your {{Hidden begin and {{Hidden end}} will mess up archiving. It might be better to remove the {{Hidden begin and {{Hidden end}} and let the automatic archiving solve your problem. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope you are doing great! Thank you for the help. --Bringtar (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Full protection
Fully protected&#32;for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. , Bringtar, as my protection summary notes, it's clear that ONUS rests on the side of exclusion, but report any BLP vios to WP:BLPN as those take priority. Thanks! El_C 16:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Per my discussion just above, I think it will benefit the website if this user is topic banned at least from any edits related to religion in the context of India-Pakistan. They were already alerted of ARBIPA, then went through an ANI report as well. Even after months of editing they want to apply WP:BLPCAT on a person (Haridasa Thakur) who died 500 years ago, then reject the evident edit summary by telling "it removed due to failed verification and not because of BLPCAT" despite the attached sources support the information, and also accuse me of "vandalise" and "lie" in violation of WP:NPA. Together with the disruption on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism which is protected for the 2nd time because of this user, I only see clear chances of more time being wasted. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Very funny! said "it's clear that ONUS rests on the side of exclusion" so you should not remove well-referenced bulk content from the article and the article has been protected to avoid edit war as you have been making disrupting editing. Anyway, from the last ANI report it is clear that last time my edits were correct and well sourced so you should stop removing sourced information and engage with discussion if you think my edit was problematic. Can we do this please otherwise I have to see the dispute resolution process. Thanks. --Bringtar (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Bringtar, do you not understand that ONUS dis-favours you in this dispute? El_C 17:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe it does to both of us because when I removed unverified contents from the other article, it was reinstaed without any valid explanation. Maybe you can explain if I get you wrong. I also opened this to discuss the dispute. --Bringtar (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't follow any of those details, I'm just saying that, by it's nature, you're dis-favoured by ONUS. Because, if you hold an WP:RFC on the contested content, you'd need at least a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS for inclusion. Exclusion, however, gets defaulted to in the event of a WP:NOCONSENSUS outcome. El_C 18:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry, my bad. I thought you read the other admin's comment here about BLPvios by the editor who had removed the exact same sourced material added by me. I couldn't add then because you fully protected the article. I should have pursued the incident at that time otherwise this new mess could have been avoided. --Bringtar (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Bringtar, I don't have time, sorry. Another admin is free to act as they see fit (no need to consult me). You just made some confusing/confused statements about ONUS that don't connect for me, is all. El_C 18:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --Bringtar (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Bringtar, El_C is correct about ONUS. Please take it to the article talk page (as you have) and lets figure this out.VR talk 18:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ''You are fully aware of what you are doing. Refrain from disruption.'' Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

AE
I have filed a report against you at WP:ARE where you can comment. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Enough trolling now and if you continue making such false allegations again then next time I will file a report against you. Bringtar (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can take a look at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where I have filed a report against you just now. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, same old BS! --Bringtar (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

DS Alert
Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see Contentious_topics as you already did. Bringtar (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)