Hello, I'm Arjayay. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Curry have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. - Arjayay (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OrigamiSoft, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. asilvering (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using multiple accounts or "coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia". Thank you OrigamiSoft (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reverted your change to the lede on the Curry article. There's a comment immediately preceding the lede which reads:

<!--This summarises reliably cited content in the article body; it has been formally reviewed. Please do not attempt to change it without first obtaining consensus on the talk page.-->

My revert is not a comment on the accuracy of your edit, but you should respect the comment and bring up the subject on Talk:Curry before attempting to make the change. There's a rather lengthy conversation there titled § Etymology and history content and source changes in the lede which you might be interested in participating in. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gurkubondinn. The edit comment Curries like Vindaloo, Korma, and Chicken Tikka Masala are prominent examples of "English" curries that have South Asian origins and modified to English taste seems to suggest the saffronising agenda, that all curry is "really" Indian and that at most this pure and genuine tradition has been slightly corrupted in making degraded adaptations that deviate from the pure line. If you believe anything of that sort, please be assured that the evidence is entirely against that view. The cited materials in the article make it crystal clear that there never was a purely Indian tradition. Instead, influences have gone back and forth between Southeast Asia, Meso-America, Persia, Britain, India, and Japan to create modern "curry". In short, i don't disagree with your edit or your talk page comments marginally: the difference is fundamental, going right to the root. Curry is international, and always has been. Modern curry only came into being with the Anglo-Indian interchange; pre-Columbus, Indian food wasn't even hot-spicy. Korma is derived from an Indian dish, but the British version isn't much like the original: Vindaloo is barely derived from the Goan dish at all, except that the name is adapted. As for Chicken Tikka Masala, it was invented in the British Isles in the 1970s. Wikipedia works from reliably-cited evidence, not from opinion. You cannot insert your opinion into articles, and unless opinion is evidence-based, it's not at all helpful (qua, WP:Disruptive) on talk pages either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and like I said, I was not commenting on the substance of your edit. Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS, it is a core principle of the project. That does not mean that this sentence cannot be changed, or even that you can't change it. I just means that you must obtain consensus on the talk page first. That's all, I was just explaining my revert to you. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you acidentally reply to someone else or was this intended for Chipswick Chap? OrigamiSoft (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I meant that for you, as an addendum to what both me and Chipstick said. I was reiterating my original point. I don't know anything about the origin of curry, so I can't speak to that at all. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for taking so long to get back to you. I was busy with work :)

Thanks, Gurkubondinn. The edit comment Curries like Vindaloo, Korma, and Chicken Tikka Masala are prominent examples of "English" curries that have South Asian origins and modified to English taste seems to suggest the saffronising agenda, that all curry is "really" Indian and that at most this pure and genuine tradition has been slightly corrupted in making degraded adaptations that deviate from the pure line.

I would like to remind you of WP:AFG. Claiming I'm "saffornising the agenda" when I've merely added their South Asian origins too and that last sentence is simply a strawman fallacy. I would also like to remind you South Asia is a diverse region with people of all faiths. Please keep your comments limited to the subject and not imagined points. Thanks

The cited materials in the article make it crystal clear that there never was a purely Indian tradition. Instead, influences have gone back and forth between Southeast Asia, Meso-America, Persia, Britain, India, and Japan to create modern "curry".

No, the sources don't say that. The sources say there was spice trade between Southeast Asia and India. They say the arrival of new world ingredients impacted it's preparation. They say Indians on British naval ships helped it spread to other corners of the globe. The fundamental point of contention has always been it's origins.

In short, i don't disagree with your edit or your talk page comments marginally: the difference is fundamental, going right to the root. Curry is international, and always has been. Modern curry only came into being with the Anglo-Indian interchange; pre-Columbus, Indian food wasn't even hot-spicy.

What is "hot-spicy"? Why is it a defining characteristic of curry and why can't other spices used to impart spicyness to curry. I've mentioned this a couple of times and I've gotten no direct reply.

You cannot insert your opinion into articles, and unless opinion is evidence-based, it's not at all helpful

I would beg to differ. Such arbitrary conclusions such as"Modern curry only came into being with the Anglo-Indian interchange" and "Indian food wasn't even hot-spicy" are inherently opinionated. I would love to see more citations on these.

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply :) OrigamiSoft (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s exactly what you need to discuss on Talk:Curry before making the edit. Like I said, Wikipedia works by consensus, and that sentence is written the way that it is because there has been established consensus for that. If you want to change it, you need to work with others to change that consensus, by the merits of your arguments. That is why that comment is there, which is why I reverted you edit back in October. You should not ignore comments like that, your changes will just quickly be reverted if you do. If you do it repeatedly you might end up getting blocked. Consensus can be changed, sometimes it changes over time and sometimes by the merits of someone's arguments. That's the whole point of this principle. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

<blockquote> That is why that comment is there, which is why I reverted you edit back in October. You should not ignore comments like that, your changes will just quickly be reverted if you do. If you do it repeatedly you might end up getting blocked. Consensus can be changed, sometimes it changes over time and sometimes by the merits of someone's arguments. That's the whole point of this principle</blockquote>

I did it once and I've not done it since. I've raised some points in talk page as well. Thank you very much for guiding new Wikipedians like me :) OrigamiSoft (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no problem. I wasn't suggesting that you have done this more times or anything. I figured that it was an honest mistake (because WP:AGF like you mentioned yourself) and wanted to explain the rationale to you. That's why I took the time to write you that message back in October, and that is why I took the time today when I found myself on your talk page again for other reasons. You clearly have some thought out arguments about the origins of curry, something that I personally know little to nothing about, so I wanted to help you understand these Wikipedia principle so that you could put those arguments to use somewhere productive rather than walking away thinking that Wikipedians are just some stupid and stubborn bastards that won't listen to anyone else about curry :) --Gurkubondinn (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful edits! Please be aware, though, that food names should almost never be capitalised. The only exceptions are for trademarks (for example, Burger King sells a hamburger with the trademarked name "the Whopper") and individual words that are the names of people or places (like chicken Kiev and oysters Rockefeller). Otherwise, food names are lowercased (except for the word beginning a sentence, of course): for dinner I might eat catfish and minestrone with gulab jamun for dessert. Thanks for your attention to detail in this worldwide resource! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Kayla Wallace. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources, it consists of machine-generated text and WP:OAICITE. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Kayla Wallace requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, as it exhibits signs of having been generated by an AI model with no clear human review. Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia and output must be carefully checked. For further information, see the section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find it difficult, please ask for help at the Teahouse. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Large language models and imdb are not reliable sources. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]