User talk:Someguywhosbored

Welcome!

Hi Someguywhosbored! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for the introduction :) Someguywhosbored (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2024 (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 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:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
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.

Abecedare (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Persian culture

Hi, Someguywhosbored. Please note that I undid your edits here as they were removing sourced material. None of your edits appeared related to any material inserted by blocked accounts at the article's history. jellyfish ✉ 04:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jellyfish! Thank you for your concern, but the edit was indeed from a sockpuppet account named mydust. Here’s the original edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Persian_culture&diff=prev&oldid=1138802046

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Persian_culture&diff=prev&oldid=1139021826

Not only is it written by a sockpuppet, it contradicts the main article. So it shouldn't be left there. He’s made many more edits on the page which I should probably edit out soon. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more edit by him that I forgot to cite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Persian_culture&diff=prev&oldid=1138801881

if there is no other disagreements here, I’m going to revert it back. Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, as long as everything is sourced.

jellyfish ✉ 19:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the confirmation! There was one question I forgot to ask. Does that mean I should cite the original edit I’m removing in the summary page anytime I delete a sockpuppets edits from now on? I didn’t do that previously out of convenience, but if it’s required, plugging in a few links shouldn’t be too much of a hassle for me. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not required, but if it's removing something put in the article quite a while ago, it would definitely help. jellyfish ✉ 00:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Once again thank you for letting me know :) Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

That sock is now blocked. Can you remove Afghanistan too now? It is also based on the poor sourcing just like the addition of India was. Capitals00 (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I’ve seen sources in the past that detail the Afghan Talibans support for the TTP. I wasn’t sure about the sources posted in the article, but after checking the Perennial sources, the New York times and voice of America, seem reliable Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

However I can still remove this section if there is another issue that I’m not aware of. For now though, the sources cited here don’t appear to be unreliable. But I’m open to having my mind changed. Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of those references cited for Afghanistan are third party sources. That's why Afghanistan should be removed too. Capitals00 (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify how these sources are not independent/third party? If there’s an issue there, I’m happy to revert myself. But I need to be absolutely sure that these articles can’t be listed as a citation on that page. Per perennial sources page, both articles are listed as “reliable”. I don’t see how these aren’t independent sources but if you can provide evidence, I’ll gladly remove it. It doesn’t appear that the talk page discussion mentioned the sources listed for Afghanistan. Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TTP is what those sources are talking about. TTP is already listed as belligerent so why there should be a mention of Afghanistan? Capitals00 (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because those sources also mention the Afghan Taliban support for the TTP. Look at the title of the voice of America article for example. “

UN: Al-Qaida, Afghan Taliban Assist TTP With Attacks in Pakistan”.

I don’t see why they should be removed if the citations are reliable. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

There has been no consensus about the hole map.

We cannot not use two maps in this article , what's why I am using the synthetic map.

This is the third time you have done this.

Stop disrupting the article. JingJongPascal (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“There has been no consensus on the hole map”.

Can you please explain how the holes map managed to stay on the Mauryan empire article for years if there was no consensus? I already showed diffs of the previous discussions which I got from Joshua Jonathan, and it’s quite clear that consensus was reached in the past. Fowler also mentioned that the last discussion a year ago also ended in favor of adding the map. So yes there is indeed a consensus on the holes map. You may have brought up your own problems with it, but that doesn’t change consensus.

The synthetic map did not gain any consensus at all so why are you even putting it there if that’s your concern with the holes map? And one can easily see that there wasn’t any consensus because despite the proposal for a synthetic map a little while back, it never remained in the info box, unlike the holes map. Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just think about the contradiction here. You don’t want the hole map to be there because there is supposedly no consensus(even though there clearly was and I’ve proven it many times. I can show you the same diffs I’ve sent in the past). If that’s the case, then what justification do you have for adding the synthetic map when you didn’t reach consensus? Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your points.

But as there is much discussion about it and Malik has provided many points and reputable sources disproving the hole map, but still to maintain neutrality I choose the synthetic map.

Don't worry, as soon as consensus is reached in the main article, I will change it to the "agreed map" as soon as possible.

Also you should know that the Maurya article has had 2 maps since 2018, so you can't say which is the "main one".

Choosing the synthetic here seems to be the most neutral choice currently. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You sort of just made a response without focusing on what was fundamentally important here. For one, consensus on the holes map was reached multiple times in the past. In fact the last debate Fowler had about this began last year and it still ended in consensus for the holes map. Just because you guys are opposing it now, doesn’t mean that changes consensus all the sudden. No consensus only applies to situations where there was never any consensus in the first place.

In this case, it’s doubly ironic. Because you recently called me out for removing a map without consensus, but than not only did you remove the holes map, you went on to add the synthetic map even though it was literally opposed last year. There was no consensus on that matter. So you replaced a map which actually did attain community consensus, with a synthetic map that never landed on any sort of consensus. Your the one who’s in the wrong here and should self revert due to WP:ONUS. Your not supposed to keep reverting, that’s what discussion/BRD is for. Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the maps are present in the article.

If both are present, it's for a reason.

That's why I went for synthetic JingJongPascal (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your not even responding to anything I’m saying. It doesn’t matter what your opinion is. Until consensus is reached, you shouldn’t be adding this into the article.

[1]

“ The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”

Which means, your the one who needs to achieve consensus before adding disputed content into the article. It also means that the content shouldn’t even be there until discussions conclude. You probably should have self reverted a long time ago, because again, the content isn’t supposed to be there until discussion ends on consensus in your favor which hasn’t happened. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, both maps exist in the article, for a reason, both has aruging sides.

Both have some sort of consensus.

Not just the hole map.

Anyways the Magadhan Empire article is getting deleted soon, so it doesn't matter, and I won't be repeating myself.

The main article has both maps, as consensus reached to include both maps, just because you disagree doesn't mean anything. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it doesn’t matter but you’re still wrong regardless. You keep repeating yourself without responding to what I’m writing at all. And when was there consensus for the synthetic map? You do realize that proposal fell flat in the last discussion and it was just brought up again in the recent events? How has consensus changed? You can’t just claim consensus changed because you think you’re right. Fowler, me, padfoot, Joshua, and other editors have opposed the synthetic map. Since it was proposed, the synthetic map never reached consensus. It’s an “noconsensus”, or didn’t result in any real agreement. Unlike the holes map. So even though you oppose the holes map, it doesn’t change previous consensus. Just like how the synthetic map being proposed again hasn’t changed consensus because we oppose it. Like I said, it’s never attained consensus.

You need to stop saying that the synthetic map had attained consensus. You need diffs and evidence on that like I provided in the previous conversations for the holes map. But obviously you won’t find it because you and I both know that it never happened. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for the synthetic map. But as the main article contains 2 maps (which we can't add 2 maps in Magadhan Empire as it already contains too many maps), so I choose synthetic map. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you finally admit that you added a map without reaching consensus? You do understand that’s not how it’s supposed to be done? Especially after you’ve been reverted for adding disputed content? Even if you disagree, you’re supposed to reach consensus through discussion first once it’s been removed, instead of adding the disputed content again. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, previous content is retained. Which means that content should be removed in the mean time until discussions end.

Wikipedia:Consensus

“ When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.”

Im not sure if you knew this rule or not. (AGF) Hopefully you understand why you should self revert in the mean time and reach consensus on the talk page. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still point remains... which map? Article contains both hole map and maximum extent map. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The synthetic map obviously. You didn’t gain consensus. Thus once the content gets disputed, per no consensus, previous content is retained. What is confusing here? The talk page of the Maurya empire went over this in the past already. You can disagree all you want but that doesn’t change policy. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

then which map do you want to add?

The article has 2 maps JingJongPascal (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only option is to add the only map that has gained consensus. Original I was thinking of replacing the gif with the solid map, but at this point, seeing as there is now significant opposition to the solid map on the maurya empire page, the only map we need is the holes map. That’s the only map which has attained any sort of consensus. Like I said, ONUS is on you so you should probably self revert yourself. Someguywhosbored (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, old friend. I thought about having a discussion on the topic of the Mughal dynasty. The previous discussion never properly concluded, and since we did not know each other, it turned into a sort of argument. But now we are more acquainted with each other, and also took part in the Mauryan Empire discussion where we were on the same side, I think we can have a more friendly discussion now. Rather than discussing the topic ourselves, as we are not scholars ourselves, and as Wikipedia says whatever scholars say, we should instead be seeing which is the most common position of sources on this topic, and what do sources more frequently call this dynasty compared to other terms. So I think we should compare what sources say most commonly regarding the dynasty now. PadFoot (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Padfoot and thanks for reaching out. What change are you proposing? Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we should see what sources most frequently call the dynasty, i.e, "the Mughal dynasty was a (...) dynasty" and include the most frequently attributed terms in the lead. PadFoot (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well first off I appreciate that you are willing to share your thoughts with me first.

I’m gonna be honest here. I don’t think we need to add any ethnicity in the lead. The previous conversation on the talk page was bludgeoned enough. And to be frank, my opinion hasn’t changed on that matter. I think it’s best that we let the discussion go. I know that’s probably not the response you wanted, but I think it’s for the best and that doesn’t mean I’ll always disagree with you. I thinks it’s okay if we agree to disagree on this point. I’m always here for other new discussions if you want to ping me for my opinion. I just don’t want to resurrect an old argument which lasted for months. Best to let sleeping dogs lie. Hope you had a great thanksgiving if you celebrate it. Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, hope you had a great thanksgiving as well! PadFoot (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]