User talk:Nonethelessian

July 2021
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Swarajya (magazine), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Nonethelessian (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC) Sorry for my mistake, will put summary from next time. I just moved the information related to controversy from the lead section to the controversy section so that it is easier for the people to get the information under one section. If you agree with the explanation let me know can you make the edits done by me. Thanks.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.   -- DaxServer (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Baran district, you may be blocked from editing.  Please read about the WP:NOINDICSCRIPT policy, the Indic scripts are not allowed. -- DaxServer (talk) 12:55, 21 July 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.

Nonethelessian (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC) But why this discriminatory policy for Indic Scripts only? Why can't Wikipedia allow the native language be written along with the English? Why isn't this the case with other scripts like Chinese? Have a look at China, this page using Chinese is okay but Indian page using Indic Scripts is not? Isn't it discriminatory? Where is your equality now? Please answer with satisfactory reason. Thanks.


 * If you go to the policy I linked above, the NOINDICSCRIPT, you can see seven discussions linked there. That should give you answers you are looking for. If you are not satisfied, you may post in Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and start a fresh discussion and argue for why Indic scripts should be allowed. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * But if you continue to ignore NOINDICSCRIPT and I know about it, I'll block you. Doug Weller  talk 18:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Swarajya (magazine). Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Tayi_Arajakate Hello, see WP:CSECTION for the edit related to 'Controversy' section. And Swarajya_(magazine) claims to be 'Liberal Right' on its About us page, See there. So nothing is unsourced here. You are just bullying the new editors like me. I don't fear blocking at the very first place because am not wrong here. I attached the link to their about us page. You are being biased here. Please get my edits back or give me reason about your this weird behaviour. Give the valid reasons. Waiting for your reply. Nonethelessian (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * t's irrelevant what Swarajya describes themselves as, you need to use reliable sources. The essay on CSECTION also does not mean one gets to remove or minimize negative information in an article when they are reliably sourced. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 17:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 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:. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Please Unblock me
I didn't remove that negative chunk from Swarajya (magazine), I had just put that into the controversy section. Also that "Bullying me" was my first mistake and she/he directly threatened me with "You'll be blocked", so I said that (Bullying part). And as you have seen above in the WP:CSECTION part, I questioned her/him (about discrimination) but after being answered, I didn't make that mistake again. So from, now I shall not make these mistakes also. Please give me another chance. Thanks. - Nonethelessian (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This looks like a removal of a lot of references to me, combined with tendentious changes such as changing "Swarajya is an Indian right-wing monthly print magazine and news portal. The publication reports favourably on the Bharatiya Janata Party" into simply "Swarajya is an Indian monthly print magazine and news portal", with all the references gone. Those are the first two sentences of the lead section, which is supposed to summarise the article. I don't see you moving it to the controversy section, except, in your next edit, the second sentence, in the form "They alleged that the publication reports favourably on the Bharatiya Janata Party" (no references). Altogether, after Materialscientist reverted your removal, your next edit went on to slant the controversy section with various "alleged" nonsense and strange repetitions — do you really think you improved that section? But you're free to post another unblock appeal, which will be reviewed by another admin. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC).

.