I am unsure what you last edit summery was talking about, but we do not allow racism. Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
And please read wp:editwar. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the ((Ctopics/aware)) template.
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Dear Imaginie, Yes welcome to Wikipedia. I read your mission statement on your recently published user page. (See here)Not knowing what the expression in boldface, “sar tan se juda,” meant, I checked on Google Translate and out popped “severed head.”
Are you suggesting that you fear that questioning Islam can result in the beheading of the questioner? Please confirm and please do so in a less formal linguistic register—lowered, perhaps to my more commonplace English, not unlike, say, the rough and ready style you employed in your reply to Slatersteven above. I am not able to do much more editing on a phone but will look forward to your reply upon my return home and to a desktop on August 16th. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
we cannot allow religious hooligans to place limiting points on thought.Imaginie (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Editorkamran (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~))
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Imaginie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Courcelles, your block is quite unfair. There is no evidence of abuse, and I had not received any prior warning about WP:SOAPBOX. It was premature of you to reveal my accounts, especially given my solid experimental setup aimed at gathering evidence of POV-pushers on Wikipedia for an upcoming blog I intend to write. Allow me to share some of my findings thus far: Did you know that after I removed a false reference on the Hindu-Arabic numerical system article, another editor promptly reverted it and added yet another false reference to strengthen the claim (so, two false references). Did you know that on the 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes article, an editor removed the mention of "India losing control of 2000 square kilometers," which was only added back recently due to my intervention. Another instance involves the Jali article, where Hindu Jali examples were removed by yet another POV-pusher. On a more positive note, I was pleased with the editors on the Arunachal Pradesh article, as they had accepted NPOV through my mention of Chinese claims on the region. Regrettably, I must express my dissatisfaction with your decision to revert my removal of content from the history of scientific method article. Upon reading this [1] book, it was clear that the content I removed was nothing but an instance of ownership-POV-pushing. To date, my encounters with POV-pushers caught red-handed have not been pleasant. The existing measures to counteract such behavior on Wikipedia appear inadequate and hence, Wikipedia is a net-negative on my reviews currently. Imaginie (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.