:Your claim that the problem is “bias” already shows that the main problem continues. Wikipedia builds on reliable sources. When we deal with academic topics, such as the origins of Indo-European languages, we build on academic sources and report the academic consensus. We specifically do ”’not”’ “balance” academic scholarship with [[WP:FRINGE]] theories. Furthermore, while doing the above, you have consistently been rude towards other users and gone to their talk pages just to insult them. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 10:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
:Your claim that the problem is “bias” already shows that the main problem continues. Wikipedia builds on reliable sources. When we deal with academic topics, such as the origins of Indo-European languages, we build on academic sources and report the academic consensus. We specifically do ”’not”’ “balance” academic scholarship with [[WP:FRINGE]] theories. Furthermore, while doing the above, you have consistently been rude towards other users and gone to their talk pages just to insult them. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 10:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
::The page “indigenous aryanism” itself is about a hypothesis that doesn’t have academic consensus in first place and you do not want to add information of the non-academic claims they are making, that which the page is supposed to describe importantly so?? I didn’t edit all that in generic “indo european” pages but in a dedicated page that’s supposed to explain the “fringe” that is Indigenous Aryanism. And secondly ‘lunatic’ is academic language? that which I tried to remove, then balance. Its non academic expression in first place and you want me to bring peer reviewed sources to back my balancing of a intentional narrative the earlier editors tried to set, that which subconsciously makes an average reader come to the conclusion pre intended by those editors? You are throwing around some technical words and your practically irrelevant by-laws, so I would admit its my mistake totally and that you don’t have any biases whatsoever? Sure, if that makes you feel any good. But don’t expect me to genuinely believe that. Afterall I don’t care if you have an agenda, c’mon don’t be ashamed to admit that..you can do this..anyways I would rather be surprised if an US owned private company doesn’t have an agenda, if I had only realized that before hand I wouldn’t have been rude to that user because what’s to be enraged about a norm. I only tried to do this because wikipedia is an abode of information to the masses unfortunately so, I just wanted to make sure an average reader would get an absolutely neutral and exhaustive perspective, but it seems like that’s a no.
Hello, Venuvg04!
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
- Don’t be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
- It’s normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don’t worry if you don’t understand everything at first—it’s fine to edit using common sense.
- If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article’s talk page. Be civil, and don’t restore the edit unless there is consensus.
- Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
- When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
- If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
- Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.
Your recent editing history 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. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
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:
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.
Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 08:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, 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:
Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.
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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 08:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
This is the up-to-date DS-alert; you’re not entitled to edit Indigenous Aryanism,a nd anyway, it’s clear you’re WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 08:10, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- And you are entitled? and why? Sunshinejoefixit (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
You ban me for balancing bias in a page? Who are y’all? Sunshinejoefixit (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
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).
Sunshinejoefixit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I just happened to defacto assume Wikipedia wouldn’t have any biases whatsoever, turns out I was gravely mistaken and it’s not just me. I’m now aware, as a private organization, you have your biases, agendas, protocols, etc. whatever you choose to call it, wherever that’s coming from. But now on I will play within that game of yours and specifically will not bother with that page anymore now that I know you have outright decided that’s how it should be. You could have just told that. Sunshinejoefixit (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There is no such thing as “unbiased”, as all sources of information have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. We don’t claim to be the truth, see WP:TRUTH. It is possible to read an article and disagree with everything presented. Your personal attacks and comments show that the reason for the block is correct. You’ll need to, at a minimum, agree to abide by the contentious topic restrictions described above amd tell us what edits you will make instead. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
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.
- Your claim that the problem is “bias” already shows that the main problem continues. Wikipedia builds on reliable sources. When we deal with academic topics, such as the origins of Indo-European languages, we build on academic sources and report the academic consensus. We specifically do not “balance” academic scholarship with WP:FRINGE theories. Furthermore, while doing the above, you have consistently been rude towards other users and gone to their talk pages just to insult them. Jeppiz (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- The page “indigenous aryanism” itself is about a hypothesis that doesn’t have academic consensus in first place and you do not want to add information of the non-academic claims they are making, that which the page is supposed to describe importantly so?? I didn’t edit all that in generic “indo european” pages but in a dedicated page that’s supposed to explain the “fringe” that is Indigenous Aryanism. And secondly ‘lunatic’ is academic language? that which I tried to remove, then balance. Its non academic expression in first place and you want me to bring peer reviewed sources to back my balancing of a intentional narrative the earlier editors tried to set, that which subconsciously makes an average reader come to the conclusion pre intended by those editors? You are throwing around some technical words and your practically irrelevant by-laws, so I would admit its my mistake totally and that you don’t have any biases whatsoever? Sure, if that makes you feel any good. But don’t expect me to genuinely believe that. Afterall I don’t care if you have an agenda, c’mon don’t be ashamed to admit that..you can do this..anyways I would rather be surprised if an US owned private company doesn’t have an agenda, if I had only realized that before hand I wouldn’t have been rude to that user because what’s to be enraged about a norm. I only tried to do this because wikipedia is an abode of information to the masses unfortunately so, I just wanted to make sure an average reader would get an absolutely neutral and exhaustive perspective, but it seems like that’s a no.
