User talk:Not tata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Moving pages[change source]

Hi, I noticed you manually moved Ganges‎ to Ganga. It would be easier to use the move function instead (it's under the "More" menu). Just a note for future cases! Thanks, George Edward CTalkContributions 14:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your 'move' of Ganges. Please discuss this in the talk page before moving. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[change source]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Not tata. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
Message added 12:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntof6 (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[change source]

Information.svg Please do not remove content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to "Ganges", without giving a good reason in the change summary. This is vandalism. Thank you. Auntof6 (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

What was wrong with my edits summaries ? Not tata (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
They did not give good reasons for removing the content that you removed. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"Good" reason ? Can you give me examples. Not tata (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
As you are unable to reply to me, and you also admit I gave reasons for my edits, I am asking you don't harass me. you should also re-read WP:VANDALISM before attacking other editors and posting incorrect warnings. Not tata (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Before accusing people of violating NPA, you should stop removing material because you disagree with it. Pmlineditor (alt) (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I removed it because it was unsourced, and may I remind you of assume good faith. Not tata (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Bengali people article[change source]

I have now declined your QD requests on this article twice. Do not request QD on it again. If you do, I will consider that to be disruptive editing and you may be blocked from editing here. If you want the article deleted, make a request at WP:RFD. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ganges[change source]

There was no consensus to move this page, and it has been moved back to where it was. Do not move it again. Even if a consensus does develop, leave it for someone else to move. If you move it again, you will be blocked from editing for trying to promote your own point of view. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

There was WP:CONSENSUS after sufficient discussion spanning 10 days with many editors and at least 2 Admin participating. All arguments raised were replied by me with evidence, like Google data. There was SILENCE thereafter, and the rule is "silence implies consent". Nonetheless, the present article isFACTUALLY INCORRECT and in violation of WMF "Terms of Use". As an Admin kindly either correct it yourself, or allow others to do so. Also stop biting Newbies and threatening use of Admin tools. I request you to participate on Talk:Ganges instead of continuing your disruptive editing. It seems you are WP:NOTHERE. Not tata (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Consensus does not mean that you have a rebuttal to everyone's objections. Consensus means that there is general agreement among editors. There was no general agreement here -- the majority of people who participated in the discussion disagreed with your suggestion to change the article name to "Ganga". "Silence implies consent" is not a rule: the fact that people didn't reply to your later comments does not mean they agreed with you. If anything, it means they did not change their previously stated viewpoint.
And please stop wikilawyering. It does not help your case. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
'Wikilawyering' is an insult and a pejorative terms which is prohibited under WP:NPA. As an admin at this simple wiki I am surprised that you use it so easily and freely with new contributors. The truth is none of the participants had any hard statistics or facts (they only offered opinions) and were unable to counter my facts / hard evidence. Merely sticking to one's viewpoints without discussion cannot build consensus. In such situation "Silence implies consent" means policy. Is there any OTRS on this simple wikipedia as I wish to use it before formally complaining to about deliberate violation of WMF Terms of Use ? Not tata (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I also see that you had falsely accused me of vandalism, and are yet to apologise for it. Not tata (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked[change source]

Stop x nuvola.svg
You have been blocked from changing Wikipedia for 1 week for breaching WP:NLT. If you do not agree with this block, please reply on your talk page by adding {{unblock|reason}}, replacing reason with why you think the block is wrong. If you cannot do this or the reason is private, please send an e-mail to and an administrator will look at your reason and reply.

Kennedy (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

SemiTransBlack x.svg

This blocked user (block log | unblock | changes) asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason.

Request reason: "I have not made any legal threats. Informing "" about serious contraventions of WMF "Terms of Use" is a legitimate "non-legal" remedy suggested by WMF on the Foundation's website. The reason is that average editors and most admins lack competence for legal issues arising from interpretation of laws, International treaties etc. To suggest that it is a legal threat is absurd.Not tata (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "The Threat of talking to the legal department can be construed as a threat, whether or not its a legal threat or not is neither here nor there, as threats, and bad behavior are grounds for being blocked (I also interpreted it as a legal threat). If you feel that strongly about that point you should have contacted them, saying you will is like saying, "If I do not get my way, I am going to tell (whomever)". I have also reviewed and read much of the same discussion on about the naming of the river in question. It too was decided there that the name shall remain the same. You have repeatedly thrown the phrase in violation of WMF "Terms of Use", I am familiar with this, and I do not see any obvious points to which we the community are violating. I am how ever seeing violations from you; straight from Terms of Use: Harassing and Abusing Others: Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism. You also have tried to push your POV by closing discussion threads on the talk page of the article involved when no clear consensus had been reached, this is also disruptive editing, and Gaming the system. It seems to me from what I am reviewing that you are trying to make a point by making policies & guidelines fit your needs. As such I see no need to remove the block in place, as there is sufficient violations to warrant the block. -- Enfcer (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)"