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)
![]() |
Hi CorrectionalFacility101! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
Hi CorrectionalFacility101! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war 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)
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)
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)
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)