User talk:CorrectionalFacility101

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Salafi movement, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of Yarmouk. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  General Ization  Talk   15:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Aisha, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Succession to Muhammad, you may be blocked from editing. Don't lie and saying fixing typos. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Verse of Wilayah‎. Don't lie and saying fixing typos or grammar. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Khalid ibn al-Walid. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Rape in Saudi Arabia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

June 2019
Hello, I'm Ermenrich. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jinn have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Last warning
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of Saragarhi, you may be blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2019 (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 notice boards.
 * 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.

I did not disrupt wikipedia, I corrected mistakes in the article. If you read any other historical source or encyclopaedia on this battle besides wikipedia,you would see that they all mention that the majority of the casualties the Afridi and Orakzai tribes suffered during this battle was from the British artillery that came to the fort after the Afghans had already taken it from the 36th Sikh Brigade of the British Indian Army. Did you seriously think 21 Indians killed 600 on their own? If so, you should watch less movies. CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention the claim that the Afghans won a Pyrrhic victory is ridiculous. A pyrrhic victory is where the side looses too many troops than what wouldve been manageable. The Afghans in total lost 600 out of 10000. This isnt a pyrrhic victory, this is standard. If you look at other battles other nations fought, they had similar or more losses but it is never considered merely a pyrrhic victory. The editor who slid this word into the article for Battle of Saragarhi is clearly motivated by nationalistic or religious bias. CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * "If you read any other historical source or encyclopaedia on this battle besides wikipedia,you would see that they all mention that the majority of the casualties the Afridi and Orakzai tribes suffered during this battle was from the British artillery that came to the fort after the Afghans had already taken it from the 36th Sikh Brigade of the British Indian Army."
 * Then I would suggest you bring your sources, if any, to the article talk page. Wikipedia is written using reliable sources, not personal opinion. And the information you removed and the reference you removed, without any explanation, is the definition of disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Funny that you mention the talk page for this article. Have you even read it yourself? Because if you did, you would see that other users have brought up similar issues months before I even came across this article and included sources in their responses. I do wonder why you are even commenting on this article if you dont know much about this battle to begin with. If somebody mentions a lie in an article and cites a non-authoritative source as his reference, removing that is not disruptive editing. Granted I didnt add a reference for what I said but that was because I didnt know how to add it. You can find what I said on other encyclopaedi such as brittanica and oxford or cambridge encyclopaedi of Indian history. CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny, I can tell by your editing just how concerned you are with what reliable sources state. When you remove, without any explanation:


 * Oxford Dictionary:Oxford University Press & Syracuse University Press sources
 * Syracuse University Press source
 * The Encyclopaedia of Islam source
 * Harvard University Press source
 * Yes, your concern for reliable sources is just another ploy when you clearly have shown to have no respect for reliable sources. I see no reason to continue a dialogue with someone that contradicts their own "so-called" reverence for reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Changing of referenced information on Guru Gobind Singh
Per Jenkins source, page 200, "After five days of unspeakable torture Tegh Bahadur was beheaded on December 19 in Delhi after refusing Aurangzeb's demand that he convert to Islam."

Per BBC source, "Guru Tegh Bahadur spoke out amid this persecution. He refused to convert to Islam and in 1675, he was beheaded in Delhi."

And with a little effort I found:
 * J. S. Grewal, The Sikhs of the Punjab - Volumes 2-3, page 72, " Guru Tegh Bahadur refused to accept Islam, and he was beheaded in Chandni Chauk , the main market..."
 * Carl Olson, The Many Colors of Hinduism: A Thematic-historical Introduction, page 23, "Aurangzeb helped to unite the Sikhs when he beheaded the ninth Guru Tegh Bahadur in 1675 for refusing to convert to Islam."

I would strongly suggest taking any concerns you have to the article talk page. You have a history of changing articles to state what you want and not what the source(s) state. That is disruptive editing and can result in a block. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I already mentioned how these sources are inaccurate as they are based on late sikh sources whereas early persian sources dont state that. I also provided a source you could check to verify. You can read, cant you? CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion Guru Gobind Singh
I would appreciate your input regarding the change you were attempting earlier. If we can gain consensus we can change the wording in the lead of the article. See here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

My input was given in my feedback to the article after i edited it. Tegh Bahadur was executed because he commited treason and revolted against the state as well as engaged in high way robbery and pillagings. For reference, read: Aurangzeb India's Most Controversial King by Audrey Truschke (Stamford University History Professor specialising in Mughal India). The stories regarding the Kashmiri Pundits are just that; stories. They are only found in very late Sikh sources and not in *any* Persian, Muslim, or Hindu sources from that era. CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "I also provided a source you could check to verify. You can read, cant you? "
 * Yes I can, thanks for asking. You might want to read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR. The source you provided was used. However, you changed referenced information, leaving the current references. Per BRD, your next step would be to go to the article talk page for Discussion.


 * "For reference, read: Aurangzeb India's Most Controversial King by Audrey Truschke (Stamford University History Professor specialising in Mughal India)."
 * And your reason for ignoring the other 2 university sources, would be???


 * "The stories regarding the Kashmiri Pundits are just that; stories. They are only found in very late Sikh sources and not in *any* Persian, Muslim, or Hindu sources from that era."
 * And yet Cambridge University and Rutgers University give a different picture of what happened.
 * When I have university sources that state opposing views, I mention both. Which is what I have done. I posted on the talk page stating a change, showing what the Truschke source states and what the other 3 sources state. Then I waited for anyone to respond, either for or against the change. Only C.Fred commented and on the 26 December I made the change and added a note to explain what the sources state. This is the process we use on Wikipedia, not changing something while ignoring the current sources. That is source misrepresentation and can result in a block.
 * to let them know of this discussion and reason why I was seeking the change in the lead. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

March 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Sylheti language. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''Do not edit war. The current version of the article (as well as the related ones) was written after multiple discussions and consensus. You can't just change sourced content like that. I've moved your comment in Talk:Sylheti language to a new section. Perhaps bring newer scholarly sources there?'' Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

April 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sylheti language, you may be blocked from editing. Stop POV modification of sourced content. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2022 (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.

My first issue is that when the article itself states there is a difference of opinion with regards to its status as a dialect or language and quotes both positions, why is the page titled "Sylheti LANGUAGE" as if its an undisputed fact that its a language? Especially when it being a dialect is the majority view of almost all speakers and a large group of linguists? Sylhetis in Bangladesh as well as the Indian states of Assam and Tripura, speak this dialect and recognise it as a Bengali dialect and none of them claim it is a language. Sylhetis in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and Assam fought for Bangla. Why did they do this if Sylheti is not a dialect of Bengali?

Secondly, all indoaryan languages in south asia form a dialect continuum. They are not as clear cut distinct as european languages like english, french, german etc. So dialect and language status is given based on cultural affinity of its speakers. So sylheti is dialect because its spoken by bengalis in sylhet and they all consider it a dialect and themselves as Bengalis.

Thirdly, Sylheti nagri is not the script of sylheti. It originated in sylhet byt was used exclusively for religious literature and the standard bengali script was used for everything else. Not only that, but nobody in sylhet whether the bangladeshi districts or the indian districts knows or writes in sylheti nagri. Claiming it is the script of sylheti is equivalent to stating ancient norse runes are the scriot for scandinavian languages not the latin alphabet, when nobody today uses or even knows that script.

Unfortunately the wikipedia article on sylheti does not reflect the ground reality of the sylheti dialect nor the views of Sylheti Bengalis, whether from the Bangladeshi side or the Indian side. CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Instead of edit warring, changing scholarly sourced content and making personal commentary, you should seek WP:CONSENSUS at the talk page where you should also bring scholarly sources in your support. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

October 2023
Hello, I'm MichaelMaggs. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Boson, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the message. I have replied at Special:Diff/1180119036. You should take further discussions to the article talk page, please. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. I read your reply, in which you claimed that the Satyendra Nath Bose article doesn't state what I stated it does. My question is: are you stupid or are you blind? The first line of the "Early life" section of the page states "Bose was born in Calcutta (now Kolkata), the eldest of seven children in a Bengali Kayastha family." Secondly, his nationality was not "Indian", India wasn't a country at the time that he was born and was created 53 years into his life. He was a lecturer at Dhaka and Kolkata which are both part of the Bengal region. CorrectionalFacility101 (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)