User talk:Oceanbed347

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
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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! Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 19:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Oceanbed347! Your additions to Kucha have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Oceanbed! I've also had to remove the material you addded to Second Turkic Khaganate and Karluk Yabghu, which you added before Tenshi's warning. Just a heads up. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 07:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I assume you intended to make the lead of Roman Empire clearer and easier to read, but your edits introduced multiple factual errors and much unnecessary clutter. R Prazeres put it well here last week: "since you are only making wording changes to text that does not contain any notable errors to begin with, we should expect that such changes are strictly improvements and that they do not introduce new errors at all". You might find that you can more easily avoid introducing problems by reading the body of the article before editing the lead. NebY (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi NebY,

Could you please tell me what were the factual errors that I added.

Thank You!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Most glaringly, "Rome became an Empire". Also, the empire did not control the Mediterranean, much of Europe, Western Asia, and North Africa only at its greatest extent, and qualifying that as its greatest extent during the classical period indicates that it reached a greater extent in some other period. The Romans did not conquer "as a Republic, following Octavian's assumption of power". Have you read the article? NebY (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi NebY,

Thank you for replying, but I strongly disagree. I have also read the article.

Rome prior to Augustus was a republic, it only became an Empire ruled by and emperor during his reign.

The Empire only controlled those regions at its greatest extent under Trajan. It may have controlled parts of those region at different times but not all of them together. Hence it is more appropriate to say "at its greatest extent".

Saying that it reached its greatest extent during the classical period does not imply that it was larger during another period, hence "Greatest". The term classical period was already there in the lede, I did not add it.

I think you acted too hastily when you reverted them. I think that if you were to take a another look at them the errors that you are referring to may not be errors at all.

I kindly request that you exercise more restraint when it comes to reverting edits. Most edits are made in good faith. Even if there are some errors they can easily be corrected by others. Wikipedia is a wonderful community of editors who work together to improve Wikipedia. Even if there are issues they should be brought up in a non confrontational manner and only if they need to be brought up at all.

Could you please have another look at those edits and if they are fine, allow at least a few of them to remain, if not that's OK.

Thank You!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

No, Rome wasn't an empire, any more than Britain or Belgium were later. Rome conquered an empire. It gained that empire before Augustus came to power.

No, that description of its extent is correct for a long period before and after Trajan.

You inserted "greatest extent" before "classical period". Your text did not say that it reached its greatest extent in the classical period; it made a restricted statement about its greatest extent in the classical period.

If you'd read the article, it's baffling that you chose to go against its established presentation of dates, which is entirely normal for this field.

You'll find a detailed discussion of the first paragraph in Talk:Roman Empire/Archive 13# Use–mention in the lead.

I did not revert your edits lightly. NebY (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi NebY,

Thank You for the discussion link,

Again I disagree with some of the points that you have made, but if you really believe that they must all be removed then I'm fine with it.

Thank You!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

That's good! Still, though we've been discussing the details of your edits, the reason I posted on your talk page was because the issues were of the sort also raised by R Prazeres here on your talk page, saying for example "Since [your edits] have introduced grammar/style mistakes on multiple occasions to texts that were otherwise well-written, I would perhaps recommend that you use more restraint in major articles that have already received lots of attention by many editors (e.g. Ottoman Empire, Umayyad Caliphate, etc), especially in the lead sections (which tend to have received even more attention)." Then too you didn't accept that there were problems, but did say "I really appreciate you giving me advice, and I will surely keep it in mind as I edit." Please, do. NebY (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The network-map has been discussed extensively; there's no need to selectively invite editors to open this discussion again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:12, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

I will join you on the Mauryan Talk page.

Thank You!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2025 (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:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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! 11:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank You for the notification.

Thank You!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Seleucid–Mauryan War, 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. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:34, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

As an extended confirmed/EC editor, I am quite familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I am also somewhat perplexed by the introductory nature and uncharacteristically polite tone of your message. I have known you for almost a month now and we have exchanged many messages and replies, especially on the Mauryan Empire Talk page.

The reason which you have given for the reversion of my edits(POV pushing) is completely absurd and totally baseless. Many historians say that based on the terms of the treaty that the Seleucids were defeated. The sources I quoted are valid. Anyone who takes a look at it my edit on that page would see that there is nothing wrong with it. I even intentionally included the word "likely" to make it sound more neutral and balanced. If you have a valid source saying that the Seleucids won, then please put it forward. I take your "accusation" of POV pushing very seriously!. I will be opening a discussion regarding this on the relevant talk page. See you there.

Thank You!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Seleucid-Mauryan War are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Please keep the discussion focused on the topic, and the issues that are in dispute. Avoid making it personal. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed your arbitration request (Special:Permalink/1366646547#South Asia) as premature at the request of the Arbitration Committee. Please use other dispute resolution methods to solve your conflict, as arbitration is only used for problems that the community after extensive discussion has been unable to resolve or if private evidence is involved. Sennecaster (Chat) 22:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

If the Arbitration committee sees my submission as being premature, then I fully respect the Arbitration committee's decision and have no issue with it being removed.

The issue I am facing is that Fowler keeps reverting my and other users edits using explanations like "longstanding consensus". When I started the discussion on the Mauryan page I discovered that there was no such consensus and not a single talk page discussion had taken place regarding it. In other words the reason given for the reversion was a lie. He gave the exact same explanation for my Indus valley edits. If you go through his history you will see him using "consensus" over and over again. If there is no genuine consensus, then using that as an excuse to revert edits that he does not like is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Furthermore consensus requires a group, no single editor can decide what the consensus is.

When I took it to the talk page, Joshua tried to stall the discussion by using all kinds of bad faith tactics. I have mentioned them in the request with evidence(timestamps). When I was about to go for an easy Third Opinion, Fowler, the same person who reverted my edit and who had not even made a single comment, immediately joined the discussion to prevent me and make it 2vs1.They then tried to troll me. When I took it to the DRN, Joshua refused to participate and Fowler did not join.

It is only after having exhausted all other options that I came to the arbitration committee. It was not something I did lightly.

Could you please give me some advice on what I should do next, What is the best dispute resolution method for this in your opinion.

Thank You!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:AGF and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Regarding all kinds of bad faith tactics: I answered your repetitive requests again and again; you obviously WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Oceanbed347, Thanks so much for raising this issue. I have come from Joshua Jonathan's talk page where I just left a warning about his uncivil attack in an edit summary, which is not the first: "looks more like sanitizing: removing info which does not sync with your personal views"

I was surprised to find there on his talk page a conversation where he apologizes to another editor for comments he made towards me in a talk page conversation. He never apologized to me. The other editor summarized his comments:

"Since you cited them in your WP:NORN responses, you're clearly already familiar with WP:ASPERSIONS, and presumably WP:CIVIL. You should then also be aware that comments like "you... and your pal" are WP:BATTLEGROUND, accusations of WP:DONTGETIT are aspersions as there's no consensus being ignored, accusations of those who disagree with you of being editors who push a biased narrative on Indian history and religion, and are uncomfortable with a presentation of scholarly information are aspersions, and characterizing another's arguments as Misleaing sophistry is clearly uncivil and borderline a personal attack. I understand that we disagree on the content, and my "what part of [this quote from SYNTH] is unclear to you?" didn't help matters, but we're all on the same team of trying to make the encyclopedia better. There's no need to personalize things further." See: July 2026.

You are absolutely correct that this editor's behavior is going unaddressed by admin. See the Hanuman talk page where he makes uncivil comments towards and asserts multiple times that I have a specific perspective, while transparently pushing the idea that any stories about Hanuman, a deity of a major world religion, is fiction.

This editor does make confusing edits such as changing wording that I have added and then using the same wording on the basis of neutrality and editing passages during an active talk page conversation after being asked not to, making it difficult for any admin to even understand the issues at hand. See his behavior on the NORN where he makes several uncivil comments and the Adi Shankara page where he engages in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

There is a lot more to say here in regards to WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:GAMING, and more but due to time constraints I cannot summarize everything. In short, @Oceanbed347 you are not alone.

@Sennecaster I look forward to your guidance on next steps.

Thanks,

Hemmingweigh (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hemmingweigh: normally, you should ping an editor when you complain about him. And when you're accusing me of multiple offenses, provide diffs, instead of engaging in vague accusations. See also your comment at my talkpage diff, in which you didn't provide diffs or specific pages, and didn't sign your message. Note, by the way, that Oceanbed347's comment "all kinds of bad faith tactics" also is WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS without any substantiation. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

PS: no, I didn't apologize to you indeed; I redacted my comment. You should have noted that too. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan, I would be grateful if you could provide me the relevant policy or guideline about pinging users so I can be more attentive to this norm.

I have read your deleted comments as well as the above response to my message and am happy to provide more diffs, if we can discuss the ones I have already provided. My intention here is to provide solidarity with another editor who has had similar experiences to my own. I hope you can see some merit to what multiple users here and on your talk page have said over time.

I see the comments you make and then redact, including the ones in this conversation. I am not able to reply to all of your messages immediately, and especially delay responding when the comments are uncivil.

Hemmingweigh (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC) moving comments to the relevant users talk page, sorry Hemmingweigh (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I acted here in my capacity as an arbitration clerk, which means I am not familiar with or interested in the dispute here. If you have serious reason to believe that someone is editing problematically and it is not a mere content dispute, WP:ANI is thataway. It's not pleasant for anyone so if you're really getting worked up about this, go your separate ways now before you end up there. None of you are looking good with this bickering. (please do not ping on reply) Sennecaster (Chat) 15:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I think we should take her(Sennecaster) advice and take it to the ANI.

My submission to the arbitration committee was indeed premature and I totally understand why they rejected it.

I am not familiar with your dispute with Joshua. If you have evidence please prepare it. Then we can take it to the ANI together.

@Sennecaster, Thank You for your guidance and sorry for the arbitration request.

Thank You!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC)