User talk:Piyoush

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Piyoush! Thank you for your contributions. I am Caliburn and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 11:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About edit on sa re ga ma[edit]

Your revert. I think that is genuine information. The reference was mentioned. I am sure more can be found. Could you please check and respond? --G (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of top 15, Shreyan Bhattacharya is only the winner so that edit probably vandalism only. Piyoush (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly follow the link I shared earlier, here is one more. They were joint winner. Please revert your edit. Thanks. --G (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't be reverting that edit because that edit is not constructive as of the first audition, Shreyan Bhattacharya is only the winner. The other one is from re-audition and they won't be counted as contestants. If you like to test or experiment so please use the sandbox. Disruptive editing results in a block from editing. We all know that edit is disruptive. So you are free to do that edit in sandbox. Moreover, that edit is/may be vandalism which is strictly prohibited. So be aware before doing such edits. Thank you. Piyoush (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting your edit. Three references are provided. It is not vandalism. Thanks. --G (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my talk page.[edit]

I have let the edit request open for another editor to evaluate. You may not hat it saying it is vandalism. --G (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is not vandalism, it is disruptive editing. As the first audition on top 15, Shreyan Bhattacharya is only one winner. Piyoush (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{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.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The block is only for two weeks, not indefinite. I gave you an opportunity to be honest on your new account, where you were seeking adminship on false pretenses. You declined to exercise that opportunity. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sa Re Ga Ma Pa L'il Champs 2017. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
At this point, you've been reverted by multiple editors, had policies explained to you and you are still trying to push your preference. We don't just remove good sources from an article because you disagree with them, especially when removing them would give the appearance that the winners were unsourced. You are edit-warring over this, and if you revert again, you will be reported to the edit-war noticeboard. There is a discussion on the article talk page, you can try to change the consensus there, but you need to keep in mind the WP:NPOV policy. Ravensfire (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Can we still discuss that in talk page? Piyoush (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is in regard to Ravenfire's above warning, please go to Talk:Sa Re Ga Ma Pa L'il Champs 2017 and continue the discussion there. Sam Sailor 15:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Sa Re Ga Ma Pa, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please stop describing edits that are clearly not vandalism. Good faith edits to improve the article are not vandalism, even if you disagree with them. Your revision here described the edit as vandalism (rvv) when it clearly was not. In addition, you continued to edit-war on the three articles despite a consensus on the article talk page that sources describe two winners. Stop. Ravensfire (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sa Re Ga Ma Pa. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
This is a required warning for edit-warring. If you revert again without actually getting consensus on the article talk page (not just stating your preference without offering any sources in support or policy based arguements), I will report you to the edit-war noticeboard and ask that you be blocked to prevent further disruption. Ravensfire (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire: As you mentioned here, it is disruptive, for me it is not disruptive at all, only you feel it is. Please see Talk:Sa Re Ga Ma Pa L'il Champs 2017, further discussions will be done there. Piyoush (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter management request[edit]

@Widr: As I mentioned it in your talk page, please temporarily add the word "Gaikwad" to the edit filter disallow. Thanks. Piyoush (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a creative way to deal with a dispute. Since the sources aren't on your side, and the Wikipedia policies aren't on your side, try to pull a end-run without giving the fill story and hope they don't bother to see the line of BS you're trying to sell. Creative though. Desperate too. Ravensfire (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for some advice on handling a dispute and some steps you can take, see the dispute resolution page. Please note, however, you're going to need to somehow overcome the sources pointing out that there are two winners, which includes the sources you've presented. Plus the Wikipedia policies on following reliable sources and not presenting a false point of view. I look forward to your next steps. Ravensfire (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't see, your highly deceptive request for the edit filter was rightly rejected as a bad faith request. As you've continued to use IP addresses to push your obviously false view, I've requested the articles be semi-protected. If you push your view on this into any article without a clear and definite consensus on the article talk page, I will report you to the edit-warring noticeboard immediately for continuing your edit-war that is CLEARLY not supported by reliable source, even the ones that you bring forward. Just stop it. Ravensfire (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I stopped it for 6 months. During these 6 months, we will observe these pages. We will continue this discussion after 6 months. Piyoush (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not. If you edit contrary to sources and Wikipedia policies in six months, I will ask that your behavior be reviewed. You don't like that two people were declared winners, I get that. That is what happened though and Wikipedia cannot and will not ignore that fact. Ravensfire (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Retired[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure I understand this edit to Template:Retired. Are you saying you want to update the other similar templates as well? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly modified that template and I restored because it matches to other retirement templates and that template looks better like that. Piyoush (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For conformation, see Template:Can't retire, Template:Considering retirement, Template:Semi-retired. It should match up with Template:Retired. Piyoush (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could we update the other templates as well? The current template designs are garish. Besides not matching similar templates, what did you dislike about this version? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it looks better like this and this is the original template. Piyoush (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help about protection[edit]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I want to know why my user page got protected? Piyoush (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've made 60 edits to your userpage in the past two weeks, and not a single edit elsewhere. The admin in question would like you to do something else, preferably that actually benefits the project, and, while my opinion on this doesn't actually matter, I agree. You should probably also look at WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA, and while reading over WP:UP will not furnish anything pertinent to this particular discussion, it may also help you understand why exactly we have user pages and what they're supposed to be used for. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]