User talk:TuberGotTubed

Please refrain from hijacking pages, as you did with one of the pages you edited. Should you believe the subject you were writing about deserves an article, please use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version that you can then get feedback on. Please also see Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline which indicates how to handle separate subjects with similar names. If you continue to hijack an existing article, you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. 92.17.14.64 (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Indo-Greek wars requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to List of wars involving the Gupta Empire. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍 TuberGotTubed (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of Indo-Burmese wars and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~Liance^talk 17:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TuberGotTubed! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~Liancetalk 17:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TuberGotTubed, welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Liance, and I've been editing here for a while. I wanted to thank you for submitting Draft:List of Indo-Burmese wars to WikiProject Articles for Creation and helping to grow the encyclopedia! We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful:

• The Teahouse - ask Wikipedians for general editing help
• Articles for Creation Help Desk - ask reviewers for draft article help
• Creating your first article
• Referencing for beginners
• Wikipedia Manual of Style

I highly recommend visiting The Teahouse if you are unsure about anything Wiki related. It's a place where experienced editors answer questions and assist newcomers in the editing process. In addition, please do not hesitate to reach out on my talk page if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here. ~Liance^talk 17:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

its a list why refrences? TuberGotTubed (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. For the previous draftification that I did, If you just want an index of wars in which the Guptas were involved, we already have the more appropriate Category:Wars involving the Gupta Empire; lists of wars of a country usually provide more information than just a link to that page, such as the victor, which needs sourcing. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Flemmish Nietzsche. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Mughal Empire, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the page of the article itself, go to Name and see for yourself the official name.

I don't think I need to provide a source if it is already present in the article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire#Name TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say the official name is Hindustan, rather it says that's "the closest to one there is"; it also doesn't include "empire"; just because it says it is likely the official name in the name section doesn't mean it should be included in the infobox header as absolute fact. You again need to provide you own sources, yes. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was called the "Dominion of Hindustan"

Mughal itself was never used by the empire TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Sikh empire, you may be blocked from editing. RegentsPark (comment) 12:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i cited a source which was already cited in the article. So my source is wrong , but the same source used by someone else in the article is right?

Ranjit Singh was proclaimed as the Maharaja(King) of "Punjab" , his lands were called punjab. TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Mughal Empire. RegentsPark (comment) 12:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a source. The article section "name" is a source itself.

The Empire was called The Dominion of Hindustan , no idea what is so hard to fathom. TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a source itself. Read my previous comment, and in addition to that, just because a couple sources say that it is the "official name" doesn't mean it is prevalent in sources, which you must establish if you wish to put it in the infobox. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok i will find a proper source and cite it. TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i added a source ,which was used before. TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it changed now, I added a source TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need more than one, and need to establish that "Dominion of Hindustan" is the official name rather than "Empire" or "Sultanate". Please just go to the discussion on the talk page about the issue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

then why don't you change it to "empire of hindustan"?

My edit was reverted when I used the term empire aswell TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mughal Empire shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Abecedare (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was add the official name used the empire

Wilāyat-i-Hindustān

Which means The Land of Hindustan

The Dominion of Hindustan

In all historical records from south and central Asia , it has been referred to as Hindustan Sultanate.

Mughal was never used by the empire TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous discussion on the talkpage on this topic. If you make any further disruptive edits without first obtaining consensus, you may be blocked from editing the article or from wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Partition of India. Abecedare (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously also not sourced TuberGotTubed (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article lead! And in any case that would not have been a license to just make stuff up and add it to the infobox. Abecedare (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make stuff up , read the article yourself too, scholars give an estimate of 1 million to 2 million deaths. TuberGotTubed (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Care to provide a quote from the article backing the 1-2 million range? Look, I am not seeking to pick on you but the cavalier attitude you have displayed so far at Mughal Empire and Partition of India towards representing what the article/sources actually say needs to stop before a topic-ban or block becomes necessary. My advice would be to slow down, concentrate on one of the many draft articles you have started, and try to build it up in compliance with wikipedia's policies (at the moment, the drafts are very poor but that's fine as a learning process). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i am not an troll,i was just trying to contribute.

Here is the quote estimation I was referring to :

• The newly formed governments had not anticipated, and were completely unequipped for, a two-way migration of such staggering magnitude. Massive violence and slaughter occurred on both sides of the new India–Pakistan border. While estimates of the number of deaths vary greatly, ranging from 200,000 to 2,000,000, * TuberGotTubed (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I will try to finish up the draft I have started. TuberGotTubed (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scholars agree on a death of 1 million

While death estimates go up to 2 million TuberGotTubed (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To complete your partial quote, While estimates of the number of deaths vary greatly, ranging from 200,000 to 2,000,000, most of the scholars accept approximately 1 million died in the partition violence. citing Roy, who says

Most scholars, using census figures, contemporary press reports, and eyewitness accounts, provide a range between 200,000 and 2 million (Menon and Bhasin 1998; Butalia 1998). Most scholars now accept that approximately 1 million people died from Partition-related violence.

I won't press the point any more. Abecedare (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok sir TuberGotTubed (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Maurya Empire. RegentsPark (comment) 05:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan

You have been sanctioned because of persistently poor or missing sources for your edits; compare all the warnings above.

This topic ban 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. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 20:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i did provide source for the name of the partition.

Infact I provided 3 sources.

It was called indian civil war by british and commonwealth media. TuberGotTubed (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that Bishonen won't regard my question and your to the point answer to it a violation of your topic-ban: Can you quote the exact sentences from Copland's State, Community and Neighbourhood in Princely North India, C. 1900-1950 that support the claim that the partition of India was "informally called the Indian Civil War by British Media"? Abecedare (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not called indian civil war in the article

But due to the extend of the violence

There is a line mentioning "rise from a ashes of a punjab civil war" it is in the article also

But what about British Pathé?

The British raj was informally called British india empire or indian empire and it has been mentioned in the British raj page.

This was called Civil war by british pathé

Even if the other source may be too far fetched

What about the British pathe source? TuberGotTubed (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

heres the full quote

• Tara Singh wrote to Yadavindra Singh and promised him the ‘kingship’

of the new Sikh state that would emerge from the ashes of the Punjab

civil war in return for his assistance in driving the Pakistanis out.* TuberGotTubed (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1950 newsreel is a primary source as I already explained in the edit-summary of my revert. And if you believe that that sentence segment from Copland about what a jatha leader wrote to a princely state ruler can be summarized as the partition of India being "informally called the Indian Civil War by British Media", I don't even know what to say. It is just a repetition of our earlier conversation above about your "cavalier attitude... towards representing what the article/sources actually say".

The topic-ban is clearly justified and needed and if you continue this approach outside this topic area, you are likely to be blocked altogether. Abecedare (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an source of "informally called indian civil war by british media"

It is an source of "informally called as an civil war"

If the 1950 reel is an primary source, then why was my edit reverted back? TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is a bit of mistake on my end i should have not mentioned "by british media" which has caused the confusion TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I clearly added the source of before the "the British media" part

My COPLAND source did not meant as an "by british media" it was a source for "informally called civil war" not "informally called civil war by british media" the source /citation was added before that sentence TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw the Copland quote does not support that truncated claim either (or, any claim about what the Indian partition is or was called) but the discussion has already skated well past what your topic-ban from "pages and discussions related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan" would normally allow. So either appeal the topic ban, which I wouldn't recommend, or move on. Abecedare (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering British Pathé is considered "primary source" shouldn't you be able to change it? TuberGotTubed (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TuberGotTubed, it looks like you may not understand what a topic ban is. You have been told you are topic banned from "from all pages and discussions related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan". That means you must not edit in a way that's related to those subjects anywhere on Wikipedia. Obviously, adding a link to the word "India", as you did here, is related to the topic "India". Please, again, read WP:TBAN, which is a short, simple explanation of how a topic ban works. If you violate your topic ban again, I'll have to block you. Bishonen | tålk 14:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok TuberGotTubed (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you violated it again here. Also, please note that editing logged out is also a violation RegentsPark (comment) 06:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You have been blocked for a week for violating your topic ban. The next block will be longer. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 08:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  Can i still edit my drafts? TuberGotTubed (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. A block applies to the whole of Wikipedia excepting only this talkpage of yours. Also, even after the block expires, your topic ban means you're not allowed to edit your drafts, since they're about the area (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan) that you're topic banned from. Have you still not looked at WP:TBAN? Bishonen | tålk 11:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  ok so after ban I should be able to make drafts about Bangladesh? Burma? Right TuberGotTubed (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic ban is indefinite. Read the link User:Bishonen gave you, WP:TBAN. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After the one-week block expires you can edit any drafts you have or create about Bangladesh and Burma, yes, as long as there's no mention of Inda, Pakistan or Afghanistan. You can read here about the difference between bans and blocks. Right now you are both banned and blocked. Bishonen | tålk 12:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to List of wars involving Punjab. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs overarching sources to show that the subject is notable and to establish inclusion criterion. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Abecedare (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir TuberGotTubed (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I had a favour to ask, I have discovered a reputable book about the Sikh empire which refrences it as the Punjab Kingdom.

https://archive.org/details/the-fall-of-sikh-empire

It does that on the very first page, as I am currently topic banned from india and blocked from wiki as a whole , could you please change

"The Sikh Empire was a" to "The Sikh Empire (or the Kingdom of Punjab) was a"

In https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Empire

If my source isn't authentic then don't proceed with it. TuberGotTubed (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to edit or ask others to edit for you. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're continuing to violate your topic ban with edits at Sikh Empire and Jammu and Kashmir (princely state). RegentsPark (comment) 16:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot TuberGotTubed (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to be unable to remember your topic ban no matter how many times you're reminded of it, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 19:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TuberGotTubed (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

i have been providing source , the edit which got me blocked/topic ban was which I did not provide source, all edits i have made after my topic ban has good sources, i have provided more than 1 source on my Sikh empire edit.

Decline reason:

This is strange. Whether or not you have good sources is not relevant to your topic ban violations. Yamla (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• TuberGotTubed, I have fixed the formatting of your unblock request for another admin to review and respond. But IMO, it is sure to be rejected since it still does not display that you have read and understood WP:TBAN. You are welcome to withdraw or modify the appeal as you see fit. Abecedare (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just create a sock account: LordTerryTheTerrible (talk · contribs) to evade the topic ban/block? Pinging Bishonen. Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is socking TuberGotTubed (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I read it , *no i don't have an "sock" for "malicious reasons"* TuberGotTubed (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be absolutely clear, you are saying you have absolutely no relation to LordTerryTheTerrible? --Yamla (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be very, very clear here. NOW is the time to be completely open and honest with us. Now. Not after your next comment, now. --Yamla (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No he isn't related to me TuberGotTubed (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have determined this is false. That ends any possibility that you have been acting in good faith here. --Yamla (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how have to determined? TuberGotTubed (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHECKUSER Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When will I get unbanned TuberGotTubed (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ban is currently indefinite. If you go six months without any sockpuppetry and zero edits by any account, logged in or not, then you may apply for the standard offer, however you would need to give a good reason for why your past issues in editing will not be repeated.

Just to make sure, can you confirm whether or not you have any relation to WhatAGreatWikiTuber, an account with a similar editing pattern? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no TuberGotTubed (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say hypothetically that he is my sockpuppet , let's say hypotheically the drafts he made is made by me, so hypothetically will the drafts be deleted? TuberGotTubed (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fuck you Yamla bring back my fucking drafts TuberGotTubed (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Burmese conquest of Arakan. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]