User talk:Trickipaedia/Archive1

March 2019
Hello, I'm Gazoth. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Dipak Misra, 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. —Gazoth (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Citation added. Please ask before removal of good faith, constructive edits. Wikipedia is not a PhD dissertation where every word has to be cited before the defence committee mauls you. It takes time to add citations. Thanks anyways. I appreciate that something new has been created here as a result of this and I learnt new information too, honestly. Hope you are working on your Balakot project diligently, adding proofs for what happened or did not happen or both happened and not happened or neither happened nor not happened. :) --Trickipaedia (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Jammu and Kashmir were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice but it would have helped if you had moved it as I was unable to do so back then.--Trickipaedia (talk) 08:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aditya Pancholi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FIR ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Aditya_Pancholi check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Aditya_Pancholi?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of culinary herbs and spices, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pennyroyal ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_culinary_herbs_and_spices check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_culinary_herbs_and_spices?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kartikeya Sharma


A tag has been placed on Kartikeya Sharma requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Tolly 4  bolly  08:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert
Kautilya3 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this a threat for my edit to the Citizenship Amendment Bill? Why guise it as a generic message having no relevance to my edits? It's people like you who dissuade more people from editing the Wikipedia. I have seen you around for more than a decade, I think and you're still doing the same thing, ie starting unnecessary edit wars. You had a problem with my edit; you removed it. Why issue a moronic threat? You really think I give a duck? Dude, this is not an army where you could get me court-martialled. Get a life (outside the Wikipedia) and never contact me again. --Trickipaedia (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you asked a query here. The notice that I gave is an "alert", not a "warning". It states that you are required to follow all the Wikipedia policies in editing India/Pakistan/Afghanistan topics. Otherwise you could face sanctions. The policies you need to follow are often pointed out to you, like I do below. You need to read and understand the policies, and adhere to them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You should refrain from spreading policing posters and focus more on ACTUALLY contributing to encyclopedic writing. Stop dreaming of becoming a powerful admin of the future and just be a productive editor today. Just my two paise... --Trickipaedia (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Godhra train burning, 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 the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Moringa oleifera, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''Use WP:MEDRS sources for all content pertaining to health, medical or clinical topics. '' Zefr (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Moringa oleifera 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Zefr (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Moringa oleifera. ''How many times do you need to be advised to use WP:MEDRS reviews? '' Zefr (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You should consider treatment. It will help you more than juvenile Moringa edit wars. It was not unsourced and you know it very well. Z. Naturforsch. C is an old peer reviewed journal and you could never get a paper in it in three lifetimes, certainly not with your whole days spent on the Wikipedia in stubbornly arguing that moringa has no medicinal benefits whatsoever. Stop obscuring. Specifically say what is wrong with this journal. What the hell is "lab research"? You know that research is often done in a lab, right? You should get a refund on your mickey mouse degree from Disneyland University. --Trickipaedia (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * MEDRS applies to human health and medicine and not biochemistry or microbiology. My last edit had nothing to do with medicine as it merely noted that isothiocynates from moringa have antimicrobial activity against gram positive bacteria. You see. You have an agenda. It is hijacking the moringa page and not allowing even the remotest suggestion that moringa could do anything other than filling someone's stomach. It is really sad what a failed career in research can do to people.--Trickipaedia (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mangal Pandey (Bihar politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siwan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Sikandar Shah Miri into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 19:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up but what purpose does it serve?--Trickipaedia (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Koeri, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 10:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please purchase a new pair of glasses as it was someone else who did this unconstructive edit . --Trickipaedia (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You are correct of course, I made a mistake in my rollback, fixed it afterwards, forgot about the warning message. My apologies. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 11:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks!--Trickipaedia (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Raymond3023. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't engage in edit warring and petty disruption. The source completely disagrees with the blatant misrepresentation you are trying to smear. Stop your disruptive editing right now. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Clarify exactly what "misrepresentation" I'm trying to "smear" and how the source contradicts it. Stop being a vile and petty moron and go get a life.--Trickipaedia (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting the sources by watering down the existing scholarly culture contrary to the reliable sources. Then you are using a source from 1857 instead of sticking to relevant scholarship. Don't make personal attacks. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You are the one who is making personal attacks. Secondly, one or two people (thuggee apologists) invoking Foucault to disprove thuggee is not an indication of scholarly consensus. Lastly, if your whole problem is with my addition of the words "a segment of" to the words "contemporary scholarship", then you should simply remove those three words of mine. Why remove every edit of mine, thus starting an edit war you're going to eventually lose, Mr Contemporary Non-Scholar? --Trickipaedia (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I made no personal attacks. No they are not "two people" but academics and their publication has been published by very high quality sources. More than 100s of sources say just same thing.  You should try bringing modern scholarly sources which debunk with their conclusive analysis instead of relying on your defective personal interpretation. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Why then does this author concede that the thuggee-is-a-myth conspiracy theorists avoid touching primary sources, evidence and testimonies and are reliant mainly on Edward Said's "orientalism" and Foucault's "other"? --Trickipaedia (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Falsification of source is not going to take you anywhere. That author says "clearly the colonial representation of thuggee cannot be taken at face value". On the whole he says that British created Thuggee but not out of thin-air,  but by misrepresenting various elements. You haven't addressed your use of outdated source from 1857. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your thuggee conspiracy theorists cite Hesiod to support their moronic conspiracy theory and 1857 is outdated? If Xuanzang and Faxian are outdated, then the history of India would come down to mere speculations from Foucaultian and Saidian morons. Dude, do you even have a word to add on the article? You're just a bored boor whose only trick is pressing the undo button. Go read, bumpkin! --Trickipaedia (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Citing a notable person as a part of a broader discussion is not same as becoming source an outdated source. I am not here to discuss your vendetta with other pages but reverting disruptive misrepresentation of sources is more productive than adding it. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, I have no patience for unintelligent, uneducated people like you. Take your depression angst elsewhere, please. I have no vendetta against anyone but unintelligent people like you. If you continue to defaecate on my talk page, you will pay a commensurate price for it, I assure you. If, one day, you choose to go to school and read relevant history books, start a discussion on the talk page of the article you suddenly found great religious fervour for. Sod off till then. --Trickipaedia (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reported for continued personal attacks on Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * He is now evading block by using his IP for reinstating same edit he was edit warring over with his account. This comes after calls for longer block on ANI. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the IP. Longer terms may be called for.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Elliot Page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Gender-related disputes and controversies discretionary sanctions alert
― Tartan357  Talk 03:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons discretionary sanctions alert
― Tartan357  Talk 03:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ford India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mahindra.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neyamatpur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Provinces.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Amrullah Saleh
Hi! I was about to revert your edits on Amrullah Saleh but @GoodDay got there first. I thought that I'd just explain why I planned to do so. Firstly, the reliable sources used on the page state that Saleh claims to be caretaker president, not that he is. And, secondly, because the constitution isn't a source used on the page, as a primary source it isn't a source that we generally like to use on Wikipedia and (as I have explained on the talk page) there is some doubt as to whether Saleh actually is caretaker president under the terms of the constitution. I'd encourage you to voice your concerns on Saleh's talk page if you disagree with me and I'd be happy to talk with you there! Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, fair enough. I was just being bold. :) --Trickipaedia (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No probs! Have a nice evening! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Henry Grose


The article John Henry Grose has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one.  Clog Wolf  Howl 05:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Did you bother reading the article? An 18th century author is still "living"? Instead of acting like a wikignome, you could have just put a reference yourself and helped contribute to the WiKipedia instead of deliberately damaging it by deleting important pages without reading. --Trickipaedia (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the action. However, I don't think I can do anymuch more than I have done already to "contribute" to the page. The WP:BURDEN is on you remember.  Clog Wolf  Howl 06:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The burden is on you to learn the maximum lifespan of a human being and to try not to delete pages of 18th century people on the ground that they are alive would be a great contribution. Now please go and edit something about some cricketer.--Trickipaedia (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The burden is also on you to read the first sentence of a comment.
 * Maybe mind your own business?  Clog Wolf  Howl 12:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
--RegentsPark (comment) 17:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Updating notification. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A head's up that this sort of edit summary will get you topic banned. Please remember to WP:AGF and not make assumptions about the backgrounds of other editors.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you also served the notorious User:Fowler&fowler for this edit or is he part of an impunity clique?--Trickipaedia (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No. And the difference between your edit summary and Fowler's should be obvious. Looks like you've been blocked because I was just coming here to do that after seeing this.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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  17:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=User:Fowler&fowler made the same personal attack here first. {{unblock reviewed |1=User:Fowler&fowler made the same personal attack here first [8]. Either block both or unblock me. This is totally unfair that the one who is doing the hard work is blocked and those deleting several users' relevant, encyclopedic, well-referenced contributions are getting a pass for starting abusive edit wars and personal attack summaries. Frankly, this will discourage people from editing. Trickipaedia (talk) 1:52 pm, Today (UTC−4) |decline = You have not addressed the reasons for your block. Please see WP:UNBLOCK before filing another unblock request RegentsPark (comment) 17:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)}} {{unblock reviewed|decline=I think you should wait out the two weeks. Actions have consequences. --jpgordon{{sup| &#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; }} 22:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)|1=I solemnly declare that I will not make personal attacks against any user. Please unblock me; you will see that I am sincere in my promise.--Trickipaedia (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)}}
 * This isn't your first time making a personal attack, you were blocked for making personal attacks less than a year ago. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I know but I got carried away by exactly the same personal attack that provoked me to repeat it against User:Fowler&fowler. I am sorry; I will go to the Admin Noticeboard in future for such events instead of reacting the same way. You can see here that I did not start it. He is known for edit wars, POV and personal attacks and it can be annoying to see him edit war on every article on India and Pakistan. I got carried away because of that. I hope you will understand and give me a chance.--Trickipaedia (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't decline this again but, for the reviewing admin, note the pesonal attacks in the post above ("known for edit wars etc.) made after the "solemn declaration" against future personal attacks. Trickipaedia, please read WP:NPA carefully. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * {{ec}}If the Hindu Nationalists (which is a bit imprecise term) weren't actively supporting their right to immolate widows, they were indeed twiddling their thumbs. I don't think there will be any difficulty in sourcing such an assertion - see Tanika Sarkar and others. I am not even going into WP:DUE. {{small|(This will be my only comment on this talk page.)}}TrangaBellam (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * My apologies; I did not realise that Fowler was likely referring to historical figures and not Wikipedians. As for edit wars, how am I suppose to not say the obvious? Regentspark himself has been party to various disputes involving him and yet he implies that Fowler has never engaged in edit wars. Everybody involved in India-Pakistan articles knows this. Is even mentioning edit wars a personal attack now? Would using the term POV be a personal attack too? And if indeed mentioning edit wars is a personal attack, then why is a reminder to note it necessary? In any case, I retract my statement about edit wars; I was merely explaining my reaction. There is no way I can delete it now, however.--Trickipaedia (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)]] (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

neyamatpur
dont defame someone if you dont know the real facts.dont know who you are .but dont do this..no one trying to reclaim anything Swapnilshivam1 (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)