User talk:Piyamaradus
Welcome![edit]
Hi Piyamaradus! 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:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! TheBigBookOfNaturalScience 📖 (💬/📜) 01:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
August 2023[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zanj Rebellion. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
- 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 and 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. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Joyce Tyldesley and other content issues[edit]
Your edits on Joyce Tyldesley are clear violations of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. You have used original research to make up allegations of plagiarism and "significant criticism". How does a moderate critique, which exists in every book review, such as "negligible fresh research material" anywhere near an accusation of plagiarism? Your "Tyldesley's book compared to Wolfgang Decker's book" subsection is just citing the respective pieces and has no source whatsoever that shows reliable sources believe it is plagiarised. The same goes for the rest of your "Controversies" section.
I have deleted your "Factual inaccuracies in written publications" revisions as a copyright violation. Wikipedia allows non-free content within reason. The quantity of text you quoted does not fall under the policy. I see you've done this to a lesser degree in other places such as [1], where I consider it on the border.
Yet another issue is your earlier driveby and over- inline tagging. I'm not sure what you'd expect from an editor to be able to fix when you make edits such as [2].
Due to the severity of the BLP violations on Tyldesley's article, you should consider this an only warning. Further violations will result in sanctions. DatGuyTalkContribs 22:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)