User talk:ArvindPalaskar - Wikipedia

  Hello, I'm Nnadigoodluck. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Balatonszentgyörgy—because it 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. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• 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 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. Thank you. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

You both are making no sense with your reverts without even looking at what is being modified.

ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

- SUN EYE 1 17:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Three Warfares at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Arvind, that was an impressive post, as the book was published just the day before! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello ArvindPalaskar, You're probably already aware but if not I've undone your closure at ANI, Generally speaking ANI threads shouldn't be closed within an or 2 of being "resolved" as those who get blocked occasionally will sock etc or once unblocked can come back and cause more issues which would require admin intervention,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hello! Your submission of Three Warfares at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. Unless you can come up with a new hook for this nomination, it will be closed as unsuccessful. Please respond on the template ASAP. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Far-right politics in Ukraine".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

~Asarlaí 21:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a case in which you are a party being opened for discussion. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Far-right politics in Ukraine".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Renat 13:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of tallest buildings in Pune, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ravet. 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) 05:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

A discussion about the lead sentence is on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Shambuka. Request your inputs. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are not engaging in the discussion, you are not justifying your edits, you reverted a half dozen edits unrelated to the RfC, and you're removing the tag that explains that there is an ongoing dispute over the first sentence -- which after a failed RfC is undeniable.

These actions do not move us toward consensus. Please engage with the discussion so that your views can be better reflected. If you have any source that describes Shambuka as an "Interpolated character", please provide it.

Carleas (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ToBeFree: I made 3 reverts on 11 January but made zero reverts on 12 January because I was not willing to edit war anymore. I agree that I did edit warring but in order to completely address this concern that I can promise to make 0 reverts for next 2 weeks on Shambuka even if the edit is vandalism. Thanks. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi ArvindPalaskar, you have edited the article about Shambuka 15 times during the last years, reaching back to October 2020, and every edit you made there was a revert: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].

I hope that future edits to the same article would be more productive; my current view is that the article would likely benefit from others being able to provide their contributions without your interference for a while. The talk page is still open and you can always request changes using {{edit partially-blocked}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ToBeFree: But you can see my regular participation on talk page throughout those reverts and I was abiding by the consensus. Many of those reverts concerned this SPA who edits nothing else.

Since I have promised not to edit the article as a whole for next two weeks, I hope you can grant me unblock. This is my first block after all in 4 years of active editing. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

To my understanding, there is explicitly "no clear consensus" at the moment. Phule lulu has been editing Wikipedia for over 6 years now; this isn't an account created for the sole purpose of editing that article, just as you are not a "Tallest buildings" SPA. They have been warned for edit warring 2 days ago and not continued since, but extended-confirmed protection may help if relatively inexperienced users persistently cause disruption when editing the article. This has yet to be observed; the article is semi-protected for a year for now.

Regarding unblocking, I understand the idea, but I see no benefit in not just waiting for the block to expire instead of trading a technical guarantee for a promise. You can still edit its talk page, too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ToBeFree: But "no consensus" means pre-RfC version should be retained just like it is with AfD when "no consensus" means article is defaulted to keep. You can see that the recent edit warring is happening against that very RfC result despite it was also told on DRN as well that only proper consensus can overturn that result. But even after that, the edit warring is happening and I was only restoring the WP:STATUSQUO. I would request you again to unblock me because the block is no longer preventative given my promise not to edit the article for next 2 weeks. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, there was no consensus for the pre-RfC version to be retained, and we encourage people to be bold when editing, not to seek a consensus before each new change to an article. Interpreting a "no clear consensus" RfC as a mandate for reverting and reverting and reverting is incorrect.

The block prevents you from breaking the promise. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ToBeFree: Yes the consensus for pre-RfC version was formed for years with multiple discussions.[16][17] That's why RfC was used to overturn it but it was closed as "no consensus". Now why the version should be unilaterally changed without forming proper consensus?

If I violated unblocking terms then you can re-block me. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The RfC result isn't "no clear consensus for changing the status quo", the RfC result is "no clear consensus for either option 1 or option 2". Consensus can change, and this recent (December 2023) state of the discussion doesn't seem to justify any reverts to me. Edit warring is prohibited and "restoring a status quo" is not an exception.

As explained above, I personally won't unblock. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited List of tallest buildings in Mumbai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marine Drive.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply