User talk:TPGOK

March 2025

Hello, I'm LindsayH. An edit that you recently made to Chicken tikka masala seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please note that if you had read the article ~ even just a portion of it ~ you would have realised that it is not an Indian dish; please pay attention as you edit and think about what you are doing. ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Rahul Verma, a food critic who writes for The Hindu,[19] claimed that the dish has its origins in the Punjab region.[20][11]"

Punjab is in the Indian subcontinent TPGOK (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that line is in the article; there are also, however, plenty more sentences which go into the origins and the minor disputes over those origins, so that one line is not enough to make the claim in the first ten words that it is an Indian dish, that is why i reverted you ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello! I'm Belbury. I just wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the page British cuisine have been reverted because they appear to have added incorrect information. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source, discuss it on the article's talk page, or leave me a message on my talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. The source being cited describes curry powder "a British concoction that blends large amounts of turmeric with mainly cumin, chilli and fenugreek, and has little resemblance to anything you would get in India", it does not use the words "Indian concoction". Belbury (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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.

Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per [1]. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hi there, a quick warning -- your recent edits to Talk:2025 India-Pakistan strikes have included some problematic behavior, such as accusing people of "loving Pakistani terrorism", making inflammatory statements about the article being "Pakistani propaganda", and claiming the BBC and CNN are not reliable sources despite a general widespread consensus among editors that they are. This is emblematic of the type of battleground editing that we do not allow on Wikipedia, and particularly not in contentious topic spaces. If this continues, the next stop is going to be enforcing administrative and Arbitration Committee sanctions against you. Given that this is not your first history of being warned for pro-Indian nationalistic editing, I strongly suggest you knock it off or a topic ban is going to be in your future. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing? Of all things? You need evidence to prove these things. Reuters has a single article which doesn't confirm anything and BBC calls terrorists as militants. The reuters and BBC are definitely fanning Pakistani propaganda. It's not some pro India banter. It's quite literal right there in the article. " Pakistan claims". A " french official", but we don't know who! Why are they called Neutral? They are well known biased western sources. As for topic ban, if you can't discern these facts and just threaten with topic ban, then fine. If you can't discern truth from simple propaganda, then so be it. What's the point on editing any ways. lTPGOK (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from making edits relating to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, for 1 year.

You have been sanctioned due to your inability to comply with behavioral expectations in a contentious topic area.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TPGOK, if you violate your topic ban again, you will be blocked. Abecedare (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by violation? The sources clearly do not support the claims written in the infobox.

https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/india-pakistan-attack-kashmir-tourists-intl-hnk

Cnn only says "Pakistan and India claimed". They also believe in the 125 fighter jet dogfight, which hasn't been proven by anything.

Topic ban of all things for saying the truth? TPGOK (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the notice left by User:Swatjester above. You are no longer allowed to edit in this topic area , including on article or user talk pages. Abecedare (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, strawman fallacy. Read your sources before writting claims in the INFOBOX TPGOK (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#c-TPGOK-20250510154400-An_Asphalt-20250510150000

This user is continuing to edit in Talk Pages. Furthermore continuing his incredibly confrontational and hostile demeanour. DarkPhantom23 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is specifically a Pakistani sockpuppet of asphalt A.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DarkPhantom23

He's still writing unsourced claims. TPGOK (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate your baseless claims.

1. I am not Pakistani, nor am I a sockpuppet.

2. I always cite before editing.

I will be escalating this situation to Wikipedia administrators considering you have been given chances, and yet have disregarded them. You are very clearly not here to provide value to articles, and have consistently insulted others. DarkPhantom23 (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) You are mostly putting out baseless claims.

2) You however did not. You just claimed that Rafale not getting shot had no evidence. Which is ridiculous. The burden of evidence lies upon the bearer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%E9%9B%84%E5%A5%87&diff=prev&oldid=1289222714

You have already been flagged for bad faith. You are not in a different category , not have you proven your claims. TPGOK (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) If citing 4 neutral third party sources who aren't involved with the belligerents of the conflict is baseless then sure.

2) If those 4 neutral third party sources, wherein 2 of them have their own independent analysts (Washington Post and BBC verify) and those 4 sources come to the conclusion of a Rafale getting shot down, along with video and photographic evidence, then the Rafale has been shot down.

It's very easy to claim someone has no evidence, without any nuance in of itself. A Rafale was shot down. Empirical evidence says so.

3) Irrelevant. There is a reason why one of us is banned for editing for a year. Enjoy the year to yourself, and I'd highly recommend for you to self reflect on your own actions. DarkPhantom23 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for repeated violations of your topic-ban from the India, Pakistan and Afghanistan area, showing an inability or unwillingness to adhere to your topic-ban and a disinterest in editing any other parts of wikipedia, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 year. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."