User talk:Kizznyc

March 2018
Hello, I'm Utcursch. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Khalji dynasty, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. utcursch &#124; talk 14:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Dakhini
Hi and thank you for your contributions to Dakhini. I've reverted some of them: the "Legend" section is intriguing and very well written, but by its vary nature it's not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Have you thought of publishing it in a magazine or in a blog?

Aside from this section, I've reverted some other recent additions to this article because they were unsourced. Feel free to reinstate them citing a reliable source. Many thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Karnataka, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —Gazoth (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Karnataka. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Warning for repeated addition of insufficiently/improperly sourced material (blogs are not reliable sources!). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 08:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Thomas.W can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . I appreciate you feel strongly about your subject, and that's not usually a bad thing, but I must strongly advise you against comments such as this, which not only verge on personal attacks, but also harassment, as it seems you are basically advocating that multiple editors gang up on another. The best thing to do in your current situation is present your requested edits at the article talk page and reach a consensus among knowledgeable editors as to its inclusion. But do try and avoid personalising the issues. Many thanks! —SerialNumber54129  paranoia / cheap shit room 11:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Unblock
I've researched and toiled and from a tiny phone paid for internet so that I could establish the true facts.

I admit I have made mistakes but those cannot be used as excuse to revert sound articles with valid references.

I've read the rules carefully and make sure this will not happen in future and I will discuss on talk page of article before coming to consensus. Kizznyc (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note to admin reviewing UTRS-appeal: This thread on WP:ANI is of relevance when judging the case. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read the rules? Because if you did you would know that UTRS is not the way you should be asking for an unblock. --Tarage (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

How did you even do that
This is nothing but targetting. I'm pretty sure admin sees it. But pressing the matter ensure he sees only your version.

I'm all for truth but not blurred lines...

Communicate and acknowledge instead of pissing contest. Kizznyc (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Alarm
Last time I checked Wikipedia page, it said undivided India.

Now as re election nears the search redirects to Akhand Bharat which is unconstitutional.

Fringe Kizznyc (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Before you get too worked up here: Wikipedia is located in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States, not the laws, or the constitution, of India. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thomas provide reference
Since it is a fact finding mission need references which you completely seem to disregard unless its blogs.

And your warning was unwarranted.

Mind you the first one was not a blog under karnataka which to claim as repeat offender.

You seem to be extremist headed for hell but that's just a fact not personal.

The edit you made I agree but the warning was uncalled for, as for the first edit it is to be inferred that Urdu is actually not Urdu but Dakhini thus all stats are of Dakhini and since then I've provided multiple sound references and some to you as well WHICH YOU JUST REFUSE TO READ OR DISCUSS. BUT ARE HAPPY TO REVERT WITH A BLIND EYE.

Like how you did with Deccan Film Industry.

It is not fringe.

A film industry cannot be one of dialects in which case it would have remained under Hindi-Urdu bollywood industry.

Dakhini is the parent of these languages as I've established and these were not dialects but parts of dakhini which evolved into their own languages.

As for you monitoring my page I see that your alarm bells ring and a decade of presence on wiki is at risk so I understand totally you will take any ugly method to prevent the truth Kizznyc (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * My only involvement with you prior to your repeated posts on my talk page today has been reverting two edits of yours on 25 March, one sourced only to a blog, and the other not sourced at all. All of the other edits are things you should have worked out on the talk page of each article, with the editors there, not on my talk page, and attacking me, as you did, for whatever conflicts you've had with other editors here was totally unwarranted. And the last comment of yours is outright silly. End of discussion. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Human Error
It would seem that you might have not seen the links below provide as reference.

I'm not sure whether the sentence has to be highlighted or just the citation given at the end of it.

In college I usually don't need to do either as I just need to put them at the end of the work.

Someone please redirect me to gain some clarity in this.

Because referring to my edit of Deccani Film Industry main article, from my references it is clear that what I did is not fringe as the articles clearly state Dakhini language NOT dialect. Although error from my side would be not giving the same reference agian. But that is just robotic anyone can see from the reference just a few sentences below that my minor edit was encyclopedic Kizznyc (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Just a note to the owner of this account. Please keep in mind, you are blocked from editing.  This entire section is in violation of your block.  The only thing you can use your talk page for while blocked is to request an unblock, and you should carefully read and follow the instructions for that.  You are very close to having your talk page access revoked too. John from Idegon (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a Troll, Only here to contribute facts
Kizznyc (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I should add that the comment I highlighted in declining the unblock request was not the only reason. There's also the POV-pushing, the ongoing use of unreliable sources, the misrepresentation of the more reliable sources and so on. I don't see any indication that any of that would change if the user were unblocked. Huon (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Unblock Please
"If I commited any mistake a year back i apologise." No, you'll need to do much, much better than that. Everything about this unblock request screams that it is time to revoke talk page access from you, because you clearly don't get it. --Yamla (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Which point in particular is being referred to from the disruptive hyperlink? I'd say social skills could have been an issue a year back.

Most of my edits have been verified and build upon as reliable encyclopaedic content.

Could you elaborate a bit further instead of inciting a urge to block my talk page?

I'm trying here but you guys don't exactly elaborate. I could just hax stuff up and contribute new account anyway, but I'm not doing do. Since I want to do it the right way as per Wikipedia, I won't take that method.

How about unblocking to see what is being done this time. If errors are made discussion will be done prior to retry of edit. Thus if still violating Wikipedia after this policy then I'd agree block was valid.

Yamla (talk)