User talk:Cipher21

ARBIPA sanctions alert
Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Cipher21, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Really? I thought it would be relevant considering that particular section is about communal violence in Kashmir. Cipher21   (talk)  08:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)"}}

Tendentious editing
Ciper21, do not falsely claim a consensus for something which has invited only emphatic disapproval thus far to resume your edit warring like you did here another time. This has come after multiple admonitions (as evidenced on the talk page). Further attempts to mislead the community or tire the good faith of others will land you at an admin noticeboard. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947%E2%80%931948&diff=prev&oldid=1055393147 Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:BRD. There's a reason I directly addressed Cinderella157. Do not make false accusations against me. Cipher21   (talk)  17:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

You are filing false reports
You have filed a false report saying that the info added was poorly sourced. This is a blatant lie and you can see all the sources were from US government sites or publications with quotes in them. And you have also claimed that it was irrelevant, however that is your POV, in the context of this article and the larger Indo Pak conflict, it is very much relevant. First, there is the Indian claim, then there is the Pakistani claim, it is very fair to add outsider, neutral views on this conflict as well to add balance. I will take this up with the admins for your blatant lying and agenda pushing. And if you are going to REMOVE information, especially with reliable sources (much more reliable than many article pieces on the page), then the onus is on you to explain why. You do not own Wikipedia, and think you can just get away with whatever you want Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , The WP:ONUS is on you to explain to other editors why you want to add this content. I haven't said the info is poorly sourced, you're the only one "filing false reports" and "blatantly lying" here. It's ironic you accuse me of thinking I own Wikipedia when you yourself want to go to the admins when you can't get your way on a single article. Cipher21   (talk)  13:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the information was poorly sourced Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you even listening to me? Cipher21   (talk)  13:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok but you cited Nov 16th infoxbox changes as a reason to protect the page (pending changes protect) but those info box changes happened by 1 user twice on Nov 16th. You filed your report on the 19th, which doesn't make any sense, and makes it obvious to me that you did to in order to shut down my edits. Moreover Wikipedia also says that good faith additions should remain on the article while a consensus is being formed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal#Consensus_on_removal. The info I added was factually correct, backed up by reliable sources, and relevant to the conflict at hand (although you may disagree with the last part) . Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Also would it be fair if I did what you did and just removed random paragraphs on the article just because I didn't like them such as the quote by the Pakistani general in the section "Prelude" and then said "If you want to this to be on the article, go to the talk page"? Of course not. And read the link I sent above User:Cipher21 Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * , do not make baseless accusations against me. My report didn't even ask for full protection, unless you're accusing me of conspiring with the admins. The Pakistani statement follows an Indian statement, both of which are directly related to the conflict. What you were adding is an unnecessarily long, unrelated and controversial paragraph. Wikipedia also says... - Wikipedia has said nothing of the sort. Again, I will remind you that the WP:ONUS is not on me to justify removing the paragraph - and this is what Wikipedia policy is.  Cipher21   (talk)  16:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Read the link I sent you!!! Good faith additions are supposed to remain on the article while a consensus is being formed on the talk page! WP: Removal. It absolutely is not unrelated, that is merely your POV, I'll be happy to get admins involved or go to dispute resolution if you have an issue with it once the article is unprotected. But I will tell you in advance, to first read the link I sent you, if you have a problem with the addition, we can discuss on the talk page, Wikipedia policy states that if there is a dispute then go on the talk page, while the good faith edit remains on the article, and a consenus is being formed. I dont wish to get into an edit war with you so keep that in mind Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy. Cipher21   (talk)  16:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That does not matter, it was written to explain how one should conduct themselves. I'm sure admins would also uphold that during dispute resolution as well. And let me ask you again, would it be okay from to remove random paragraphs from the article just because I dont like it WP:IDL and then say go on the talk page? That being said, I'm more than happy to go to dispute resolution or admins if you have an issue. I will however make the original paragraph shorter and remove a few details Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It actually does, because a policy is a policy officially enforced on Wikipedia, and an essay is just someone's opinion. The admins act on policies, not essays, especially when they have to choose between the two. As for your paragraph, again, the statements by India and Pakistan are directly relevant to the conflict and the other paragraphs are undisputed and have been there from before. The WP:ONUS is on you to explain reasons for your content's addition. In a an article about a US-Russia standoff would you start writing long paragraphs about the long list of militants they've supported? Cipher21   (talk)  17:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Report
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
Your recent editing history at Operation Chengiz Khan 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Your continued disruption, unabating CIR and willful chicanery
Notwithstanding a logged injunction enjoining you to abstain from BATTLEGROUND/CIR editing, you have continued to edit in bad faith, engender disruption to the project, and manifest an unabating and execrable CIR deficiency.

This appertains to your editing on 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff, including your recent edit-warring therein, which has all the earmarks of bad faith.

On December 1, 2021 you added an eminently dubious and partisan count of the Pakistani casualties under the cloak of a specious restoring per talk page discussion edit summary, using a self-published source, despite having never made the solitary effort to even sound out editors of the page to solicit their views, as that addition decidedly did not stem from the discussion that was confined to a discourse on Indian casualties.

More to the point, however, was your mindful misrepresentation of the source (presenting what the source qualified using the sentence adverb reportedly as a bare, cold fact count.) This was especially unsavoury and distasteful inasmuch as, as a serendipitous glance at your contributions laid bare, you had avowedly used a pretext the edit summary and the source does not state 4 aircraft were shot down, it uses the world "reportedly" which means the author does not consider it a fact to justify your edit warring on Operation Chengiz Khan.

You have since turned to edit warring to preserve your impugned addition using as bogus and misleading edit summaries as "discussed to death" and CIR laden

I am hereby drawing the attention of to this in view of the locus of disruption and the delicacy of the case, calling for an exercise of judgement and admin discretion. Kerberous (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Kerberous sorry, I don't have time to look into this presently, so if you think there's been WP:ARBIPA violations, WP:AE would be your best bet. El_C 03:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Kerberous, as stated on the talk page which you clearly haven't bothered to consult, the source quite plainly states "The cost for Pakistan in terms of men was around 34 deaths of soldiers and injuries to another 10". Where in this quote does it say reportedly? If you're going to make accusations of bad faith, the least you can do is stop cherrypicking information out of context.. Cipher21   (talk)  10:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of User:SpicyBiryani&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/SpicyBiryani. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Girth Summit  (blether) 15:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)