User talk:PostcolonialLitNerd

Welcome!

Hello, PostcolonialLitNerd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Philip Cross (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

I've noticed you've made continuous, sensible improvements to Prof Gopal's page. Thank you for your efforts! Lajmmoore (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priyamvada Gopal ‎

Hey PostcolonialLitNerd, do you have a relationship you should disclose with Priyamvada Gopal? Pikavoom (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. (PostcolonialLitNerd (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Can you explain why every one of your 60+ edits is about Priyamvada Gopal and you have never edited another topic on Wikipedia? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I would like to know as well. If you only edit one article in three years, and only with a certain editorial slant, others are bound to have questions. Atchom (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Your recent editing history at Priyamvada Gopal 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. 15 (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Pikavoom (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Pikavoom (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Priyamvada Gopal

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I got blocked for 72 hours for long term edit warring. The admin who blocked me stated that my edit's which have the 'reverted' tag in the edit history is evidence that my changes don't have consensus. It was actually the edits that I kept reverting that don't have consensus. Moreover, they were abusive and contravened WP:BLPBALANCE policy. The offending material reads: "warrior for racial justice or a professional victim with a persecution complex" & "the Torquemada of the New Woke Inquisition". Given that there was no consensus for including these remarks in the article, I believe it was appropriate to revert them. I was specifically referring to these comments when I stated that I would continue to revert edits that are malign and foolish. Moreover, the comments are abusive and contravene WP:BLPBALANCE policy. It is for this reason that I believe my block was incorrect. PostcolonialLitNerd (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Being correct with your edits is not a defense to edit warring, as every edit warrior thinks that their edits are correct. There are proper procedures to follow if you feel that information against consensus is being added to an article.

I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2021 (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.

.

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nigel Biggar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medium. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Your recent editing history at Priyamvada Gopal 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Pikavoom ^Talk 15:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support the above warning. In view of the contribution history of this editor, which appear to be almost entirely on Gopal related matters, I think that a topic ban needs to be considered. It seems to me that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia but to use Wikipedia as a battleground for pursuing personal POV wars. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PostcolonialLitNerd. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]