User talk:Jptr11

CS1 error on Ayurveda

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ayurveda, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to fix the URL. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • [(https://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/travel/rejuvenate-yourself-this-monsoon-at-kerala-the-centre-for-all-things-ayurveda/article24269826.ece) "Rejuvenate yourself this monsoon at Kerala, the centre for all things Ayurveda"]. The Hindu. 25 June 2018. Retrieved 2 July 2026. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Welcome and introduction to contentious topics

Hi Jptr11! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing, it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules. This designation is broadly construed, so if you have to ask whether a particular edit is covered, you should assume it is.

The rule that most affects new editors is the prohibition on making any edit related to Indian military history or castes, including on talk pages, unless you are logged into an account that is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

Any edits you make contrary to the contentious topic procedures are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to your being blocked from editing. If you have any questions about the contentious topic procedure, you can ask for help!

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! --Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 08:38, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

okay noted! Jptr11 (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Whopper

I've removed the thread you suggested be deleted (and two more). Thanks for pointing it out. There's no problem deleting talk page threads that are vandalism or WP:NOTAFORUM. Just give the reason for deletion in your edit summary. Meters (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it was kind of threatneing , and calling for subtle violance in wikipedia Jptr11 (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for running unapproved bot scripts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

Under the bot policy, all automated scripts must be approved by the Bot Approvals Group to ensure that they perform safe and useful functions without stressing system resources.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  CoconutOctopus talk 10:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Please can you explain why you are editing hundreds of random talk pages seconds apart? I would also appreciate an explaination as to why you gamed autoconfirmed permissions. Are you attempting to do the same for extended confirmed? CoconutOctopus talk 10:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

CoconutOctopus The comments are AI-generated as well. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm hoping an explanation is forthcoming. CoconutOctopus talk 10:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

They have also engaged in spamming: --Guy Macon (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware, as I reverted that. I'm quite open to extending the block if a suitable explanation is not provided. CoconutOctopus talk 10:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, seems as if they're trying hide that they're using AI? Sulfurboy (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Now that is hilarious! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I was testing a tool for Wikipedia , the edits are supervised edited and not random. I have read the edits for the talk page and gone through it , verified if it makes sense and only accepted those. Rejected those are non sense.

as you can see I’m able to flag malicious replies in talk and one editor appreciated, see my talk page.

if this violated Wikipedia policy, I apologize and never use to edit talk pages. Jptr11 (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I only appreciate human written replies. Not sure what the point of this tool is besides asking for trouble and annoyed editors. Raskuly 🐰 12:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

It is against policy to use any form of automated editing tool such as a bot or script without permission. It is also against policy to use an LLM to comment or create content. CoconutOctopus talk 12:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

ok, then I wont use that in the future. Jptr11 (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I was testing a tool for Wikipedia , the edits are supervised edited and not random. I have read the edits for the talk page and gone through it , verified if it makes sense and only accepted those. Rejected those are non sense. ...would you care to explain what that bot script was, how/where you found it, and why you were using it in the first place?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

will that helps me now ? Jptr11 (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I can contribute to wikipedia open source project if any. Jptr11 (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

will that helps me now ? Considering the admin that initially blocked you asked for an explanation, yes, providing an explanation would be a good first step if you're intending to appeal the block.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:07, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

36 hours block was the one given. I have given the explanation, but Daniel Quinlan blocked me indefinitly Jptr11 (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not my call what happens to you, that'll be up to whichever admin reviews your appeal, but your explanation didn't really explain anything in my opinion. You've said that you were testing a tool and checked to make sure the text wasn't gibberish, but you've still not said anything about what you were trying to do, what the tool was / where it came from, or why you were using it. These things would be good to know.

It's highly unusual for a brand new user who's unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works to know how to run userscripts that could be used to game the system & spam random talk pages with meaningless synthetic replies at a rate of 5-6 per minute. I'm not new here, and I wouldn't know the first thing about how to do what you were doing, so I find what you've said a little hard to believe.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:52, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for running a bot script without approval, gaming permissions, promotional editing, and disruptive editing.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  Daniel Quinlan (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

Jptr11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I was testing a tool, which read the talk secion completly and give a talk reply. I was using superwised method where i only allowed acceptable replies which make sense and add value to the discussion and rejected all those nonses. You can see in my talk page, on editor appreciated me of flaging a threating reply in talk.

i was not aware this is accepted in wikipedia as i'm a new user.

I wont repeat this and i admit my mistake. Jptr11 (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There's no way you were inspecting and "supervising" hundreds of edits with less than ten seconds in between them. You also haven't answered any actual questions about your editing practices. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:58, 26 July 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.

You still haven't explained what the tool was or why you were using it. –jacobolus (t) 19:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you think you advance the project with a boatload of comments that merely paraphrase what had already been said? —Antonissimo (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I replied to you for questioning a talk page edit . but:

1. that was before you started spitting out rapid-fire talk page edits,
2. I pointed out that you could have addressed the problem yourself, and
3. your reply to my post was very strange . The talk page post was not threatening, and it was not calling for violence. It was simply vandalism. I support your block. Meters (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support both blocks, support decline of unblock request. All three administrators followed Wikipedia policies and made the right decision. Suggest removing talk page access the very next time Jptr11 posts without honestly answering the actual questions asked without any accompaniment from a boolean cybercompeer. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Probably a sock of @Visiontransformerunet R.C^{Outlander07@talk} 06:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• I also support both blocks, support decline of unblock request, for the rationale provided by Guy Macon. In addition, I would propose to rollback all talk page edits. --Leyo 20:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I already rollbacked all the bot edits. If I did miss any, please feel free to go zap them. CoconutOctopus talk 20:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Banned for repeatedly abusing multiple accounts.

It looks like they made a bunch of AI edits as

• Sukesh parakka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• P9w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Lots of copyvios on commons as well. some of them haven't been caught. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)