Tentmaker Prashanth

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 14:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Your edits don't meet WP:MOS (sections don't ask questions) and your references are blogs and recipe websites, not reliable sources. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi.

Please, how so? I've only meant to improve the text for 2 reasons:

- readability (maintaining a professional air)

- reader-friendliness

In an attempt to do so, I added a section, contrasted it with the earlier section. Further, I've done so with an air of neutrality.

For the additional text that I added:

children and adults looking to find out about the history may read the history section that I've added. I mentioned "non-primary, non-Academic" when citing those sources. Please give me some time and I can find some primary sources as I have strong Academic background...

...and am doing this for free.

On your 2 reversions on content that I've added to strengthen the Wikipedia article:

As you've reverted my edits twice, you are not really adding to the spirit of what Wikipedia should be. Please be specific with your "criticism". You wrote: "Your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive". That is a vague, generic comment without substantiation.

What I did:

- Changed a semi-sectioned article into a cleaner, readable, 3 sectioned article. Details below:

Instead of the original two sections with a heading-less first paragraph and another section about "rice pudding across the world", I parsed the text into 3 sections: First, the introduction, titled "what is rice pudding?" (instead of leaving it headling-less as in your 2 reversion). Then, the second section I created was for the "history". And, then I contrasted it with "modernity", and made the geographical headings more precise and organized them hierarchically.

My purpose: I googled myself what rice puddings history was. Wikipedia entry on rice pudding lacked so I added what I found using whatever professional competencies afforded me--hopefully that disarms any suspicions.

That said, with all due respect, as this feels like its against the spirit of Wikipedia and is possibly stiffling its growth, I would like to get an administrator involved immedietly.

Thank you. Tentmaker Prashanth (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

On your comment regarding the WP:MOS, the MOS reads:

Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."

--there was no substantial reason. "Not constructive" was claimed without substantiation.

Further, the MOS states:

Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable.

-- you've reverted my edits twice with 0 specific substantiation.

I'll give you some time to improve or filter through the article to highlight references that may be improved. Other than that, when I find more time, I'll see if I can escalate this if possible.

Take care. Tentmaker Prashanth (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, now it makes sense. Found you. You're involved in an editing spree on a religious wikipedia article I've contributed toward a while ago on "Leviticus 18". And, you followed me here to rice pudding.

Definitely need to report this to the appropriate administrator. Tentmaker Prashanth (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:QUESTION states: Avoid rhetorical questions, especially in headings. The references you added were self-published sources (blogs) and WP:SELFPUB states such sources are "largely not acceptable as sources." I didn't follow you from Leviticus 18 to Rice pudding. Check the timestamps. I looked at your other edits after Rice Pudding and found you were adding original research to Leviticus 18 and also Box-spring. I initially saw your edits to Rice pudding from Special:RecentChanges.

It is quite possible that there was never a history section at Rice pudding because no reliable sources have been found. That doesn't mean we are free to use poor sources instead. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Other editors have pointed out that some of your edits are speculative and WP:OR like here and here again. Nobody here is trying to stifle Wikipedia's growth nor are you being targeted. There are specific and fairly strict guidelines because this is an encyclopedia so readers need to know that the information is verifiable and reliably sourced. The WP:MOS is there to ensure that articles have encyclopedic languange, aren't personal essays, or how to manuals. Almost everybody stumbles once or twice when they begin editing but it isn't personal when your edits are reverted as editing is collaborative and people don't own their edits or the articles themselves. I hope you will assume good faith and realize that I'm trying to help both you and the encyclopedia. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

You have regularly change and stalk my differing small contributions over the years. I do understand the need for neutrality or better sources and to avoid opinion. But, that is being used as a after-the-fact cover up of your b behaviour. You're bias likely comes from an anti-religious/anti-Christian/anti-thiestic stance. That said, you did not make those requests, rather you went for blanket reversions in your personal spite.

Your initial criticism was a vague, one-size-fits all answer that did not fit my case on "style" and did not substantiate your claims.

You made blanket reversion. Some of my changes on rice pudding could have been kept. Thus, your answer here is simply backtracking to cover your tracks.

A lot of my previous contributions could be debated or at least flagged for an appropriate source but was not, rather it was completely removed.

You are absolutely stifling the spirit of what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Very dishonest, sorry to say. Tentmaker Prashanth (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)