User talk:Bitter Writer
Welcome[edit]
Hello Bitter Writer and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.
If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Name change[edit]
Kindly don't violate UNGA Rights to Indigenous Peoples A/RES/76/L.22/Rev.1 (10 November 2021). Name change to Ganga isnt the problem.
Bitter Writer, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Bitter Writer! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC) |
The 3RR rule, which you have violated[edit]
Dear Bitter Writer (talk · contribs) as you are new, I will not report you to WP:AN/3RR for violating Wikipedia's WP:3RR rule, but please consider this to be the final warning about engaging in WP:EDITWARRING. Please note you cannot make more than 3 reverts (directly or indirectly) in a 24 hour period. Please also read and reliable sources and due weight.
Although it is not mandatory, it is not a good idea to remove warnings from your user talk page. It makes the work of an administrator a tad harder, but not impossible (as they can see the warnings in the edit histories). Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
November 2021[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)After being cornered for changing
THIS: The Ganges (/ˈɡændʒiːz/ GAN-jeez) (in India: Ganga (/ˈɡʌŋɡə/ GUNG-gə); in Bangladesh: Padma[5][6])
TO THIS: The Ganges (/ˈɡændʒiːz/ GAN-jeez) or Ganga (/ˈɡʌŋɡə/ GUNG-gə) (in Bangladesh: Padma[5][6])
- You were not "cornered", and I urge you to drop this axe--you were partially blocked from the main article, and are still free to discuss matters on the article talk page, but what you are doing here displays a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, which might mean that your block might be extended. I have removed part of your commentary on that talk page: if you wish to make a point, do it concisely, in an organized fashion, and without personal attacks. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Brilliant. However, I was concise to the point but none of them gave a reply in an organised fashion when I showed them how their points to keep Ganges were wrong. Why was I being sought to be blocked then? I think Dasanudasa has now removed his comment which was proving my case, im unsure of Fowler. I kindly requested them for a reply showing their arguments werent valid and they sought this. So yes that's what cornering means.
- At least Fowler started off nice. But just couldnt get back when I showed his/her errors in taking Ganges over Ganga, it was still going pretty formal. But Dasanudasa begun boasting soon enough to block me. Shouldnt blocking be a last measure when the other party is asking for a reasonable discussion. I was hoping to keep aside politics and groupism for constructive talk.
- You were edit warring. I urge you once again to read WP:BRD – if you have been reverted, it's up to you to get consensus for your changes to the article. Edit warring to 'your' version is an absolute no no, and is how you get blocked. I haven't "boasted" about anything, but you are being disruptive and, so far, apparently completely unable to grasp even the most basic concept of consensus-based editing. Use the page block as an opportunity to do some editing elsewhere. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Don't think you're the boss of anyone here ever again, you're not a delegate to the world on Wikipedia. Your message, I quote:On second thoughts, I see Bitter Writer has already been warned again THIS MORNING. I'm reporting. This is not a professional expression of your minor distress, to put it in your words, you are not apparently but evidently completely unable to grasp even the most basic concept of consensus-based editing. Your accusal of me has been disproven by edit history wherein I kept requesting members for a ground to discuss. I've already stated how I've proved their fallacies in their argumentation using only facts but they denied to respond, staying silent but reverting edits. So clearly I was over and beyond the basics of consensus based editing. Further information, child, just read the messages I've sent so you refrain to ask me questions that have been answered.
- My messages weren't "disruptive" to anyone before my block, it's crystal clear of how you panic over this edit and refused to engage in a constructive dialogue, it only reflects your bias. And if I was "disruptive", you weren't affected at all, you popped in and reported me unlike other who have at least spoken once. I don't expect you to change in anyway, you've clearly made up your mind. Do me a favor and don't get back to me, just act your age please. Bitter Writer (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- You were edit warring. I urge you once again to read WP:BRD – if you have been reverted, it's up to you to get consensus for your changes to the article. Edit warring to 'your' version is an absolute no no, and is how you get blocked. I haven't "boasted" about anything, but you are being disruptive and, so far, apparently completely unable to grasp even the most basic concept of consensus-based editing. Use the page block as an opportunity to do some editing elsewhere. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Reply to user Fowler&fowler- "Government's websites are of little value in establishing reliability."[edit]
1. Do you hear yourself? How biased and stern you are to declare that as a statement for your "feelings" over the indigenous name? India's worst enemies are truly Indians. You wont even take time to ponder and introspect over this fairly due to your own hypocrisy. And i've taken beyond Govt sources, plus a point u raised much before was Ganges is common use, Ganga isnt. Factually proven wrong by another user- if you are unbiased, fair editor, show it now. Plus, if there's a slang name to any formal name today (hypothetically speaking) that's made popular that isnt a basis to change it on Wiki Eg: What liberals & conservatives are termed in India- if it becomes world reknown as new nicknames, it wont affect their Wiki pages. This is what Ganges is to British. Child, read veil of ignorance and game theory.
2. Next, from your words, Ganges being official isnt cited appropriately on the Wikipage- citation [5] reads (a) recommendation (b) FOR USE OF BRITISH GOVERNMENT, but to you Govt isnt reliable- Self Defeating prophecy - nor is this for Universal use, citation [6] hyperlink has clearly stated it is used as such through LCSH rule which the Wikipage doesnt follow and this is used only to INDICATE topics of the actual library resources and not officially change names Eg: Italy -> Mathematical models indicates what one can find in section/topic Italy inside the library offline/online when they search vice versa, there is also Government policy -> Italy which you can understand. Finally, US Library of Congress (which means for serving the US Congress) is only for Official Use and NOT National Library of USA, Wiki will distinguish official vs national for you Eg: Indian official languages. LOC themselves state their "collections" which havent included many natural language terms are for Congress use. Albeit they state- the library welcomes scholars from across the country to freely use its services (in this case Topic name). However, India does seem to have a national library who's national repository only recognises Ganga and not once for Ganges. From your opinion, Govt source somehow isnt reliable, but both citation 5 and 6 are from Govt sources which are flexible and for limited usage- 5 from British, 6 from Legislative branch of USA. As you seem to support rational thinking, I assume you abide by this and follow "Ganga" now.
- Just for your information, the Library of Congress is the defacto national library of the US. Anyone may enter it, though only members of Congress and government officials may remove materials from it. The LOC receives a copy of every book published in the US. If you wish to appeal the block, please follow the instructions provided. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- "de facto" not national or "de jure", You literally checked on Wikipedia. Check their official website. And yes I have followed the instructions, i've sent a request over being unblocked as well as to settle the Ganga-Ganges issue. I've shown how I was cornered the who 2 days as they waited to block me. More details in the appeal i've made, hopefully it reached you.