User talk:SpicyBiryani

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, SpicyBiryani! Thank you for your contributions. I am DiplomatTesterMan and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! DTM (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

ARBIPA sanctions alert
Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I have already seen the banner on the original page and have not made any edits to the article itself, but opened a talk page section about its inaccuracy. SpicyBiryani  (talk)  23:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BATTLE and WP:ASPERSIONS
Stop speculating people's nationality with your messages like "an Indian user has reverted this page", "IP address indicates they are Canadian, a neutral nationality", violate WP:BATTLE and WP:ASPERSIONS. What matters is WP:RS, not nationalities. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not speculating their nationality, there's a button on the bottom of their contributions page that tells you that. SpicyBiryani   (talk)  05:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Given your continued failure to understand the listed policies, I have filed a report against you at WP:ARE where you can comment. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 21:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The administrators in the thread at WP:AE are now considering whether to ban you from certain topics based on your apparent partisanship and your references to the nationalities of other editors. It might benefit you to make some assurances about your future behavior. For example, you could agree to make no further edits about conflicts regarding India or China for three months. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm replying in the 'statement by SpicyBiryani' section. SpicyBiryani   (talk)  19:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Continuous misleading information
It is seen that you have been constantly adding Indian Claim in the 2020 China- India Skirmish. I would like to inform you please update your the information. News magazine from China including State owned News site and it's editor has also Acknowledged. https://asianews.press/2020/06/16/india-chinese-troops-face-off-at-eastern-ladakh-india-army-officer-killed/amp/. It is requested to reverify the information from various sources. Then upload the details. And if such activity is again done by your side in such controversial topic then you may face serious consequences. Swastik Mridha (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Your claim has been thoroughly debunked on the talk page, but I'll post this here as well: https://twitter.com/bycongwang/status/1272835039823163394. That is an Indian claim, and attempting to paint it as unbiased is a violation of WP:NPOV. SpicyBiryani   (talk)  13:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The claims are not Indian. https://twitter.com/WenwenWang1127/status/1272807264911372288?s=19 please refer it. And also note the Tweet is from which side. Swastik Mridha (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The claims are Indian: https://twitter.com/WenwenWang1127/status/1272818912082583557 SpicyBiryani   (talk)  14:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

2020 China–India skirmishes
Regarding the Indian claimed figure on Chinese casualties here, some editors are constantly removing the words "and injured", even though, as per the cited source, 43 is both killed AND injured Chinese soldiers and not just killed. Example. EkoGraf (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems the same editor just reverted your edit as well. EkoGraf (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess this was inevitable, with India having the largest internet population in the world. Should I just add a 'current' or 'pov' tag to the article for now? We can't keep constantly reverting incorrect edits and give warnings, we have to take breaks. And during these breaks, many may come and take the misleading article as correct information and spread that information, which reflects badly on Wikipedia. So if there's a current or pov tag, it reduces the chances of that happening. Unless, of course, they revert that as well. SpicyBiryani   (talk)  19:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah you are probably right. A tag for now may be best and then let things cool off before trying to properly balance the article out. I consulted with another editor and he also agrees too many hot heads at the moment pushing their own narrative so it may be best to wait until things calm down before straightening things out. EkoGraf (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing within the domain of WP:ARBIPA
To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." This edit violates your topic ban from WP:ARBIPA. The ban covers "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed". Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't insert unsourced figures next to infobox parameters like you did here, unless you have a source to back up the same. 2405:204:1282:A75E:F9F1:4DBE:A00A:DC79 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hei, Pakistani.. Don't reduce Indian cities actual GD
Hei, Pakistani.. Don't reduce Indian cities actual GDP...I know you don't like us..But true data should nbe present in Wikipedia..Ok?? Polling 2 (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Provide a source for your claims and stop adding made up figures to the page, before you get blocked for persistent vandalism. SpicyBiryani   (talk)  10:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hei, lol pak. Why reducing Indian cities GDP?? Do u want to prove lol Pak🤣 is ahead of 🇮🇳India?? 🤣🤣.. Tuhinpan123 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

On WP:AE
I have filed a report against you at WP:ARE where you can comment. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Battle of Dograi. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. ''I strongly recommend you acquaint yourself with the policies before you invoke them. NPOV doesn't say that we water down facts. In fact, one of the tenets of NPOV is that editors "avoid stating facts as opinions Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."'' MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indiatimes is an Indian source, and a sketchy one. In fact, the entire article is based off Indian sources and probably deserves an NPOV tag, since India was a party to the conflict. But you do have a point. Anyway, a few minutes of searching and I found some sources contradicting Indiatimes.


 * The Jats suffered  heavy  casualties  in  the  operations  which  included  58 killed and 157 wounded, while on the Pakistani side the toll stood at 247 dead. The leadership of the battalion excelled in the attack fighting from  the  front,  four  officers  was  amongst  those  killed  while  six  officers  were injured.
 * 1 Baloch had over one hundred casualties in less than an hour.Total losses of 3 Jat were 58 killed including four officers and 157 wounded including six officers
 * However, for 3 Jat, this spectacular victory came at a very heavy price- while five officers and 59 soldiers attained martyrdom, six officers, five Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs), and 142 men were wounded.
 * SpicyBiryani  (talk)  16:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#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)