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:
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
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! Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Kautilya3 ( talk) 01:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
You have removed content from Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir to be specific you removed word Scholar with edit summary of Women are not accepted as Scholars in Islam. Kindly refrain from such edit summaries that are not based of facts. Besides, edit summaries are for letting other editors know what have you edited not to provide theories. Check List of female Islamic scholars if you don't know any muslim female scholar. Happy editing. signed, 511KeV (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Please do not make any edit on 2022 Karnataka hijab row. All your edits were controversial and have been reverted. you are wasting your time and everyone else by doing that. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. In future if you want to make any edit on that page, post on the talk page first. Get consensus and edit the article only after that. Venkat TL ( talk) 09:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Please don't extend edit request sections after they have been answered, as you are doing Talk:The Kashmir Files. Start your own sections that you want to raise, and making them as complete and as policy-based as possible. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Mass pinging is not needed. Read WP:WATCHLIST. If you mass ping me again, I will mute your notifications. Then I will not get your call even if you are not mass pinging me. Please choose wisely. Venkat TL ( talk) 12:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I suggest you see the WP:ECP protection as a sort of Proof of work (if you are familiar with bitcoin etc). However good-faith-ed you might be, the history of disruption by other low edit-count editors will make volunteers think twice before responding to posts from another new editor. I was in a similar position a while ago, so I'd suggest that instead of spending time on that talk page, it's much easier to contribute elsewhere, so that you have the 500 edits necessary for editing extended-confirmed articles. Do note though, that trying to game it with non-productive edits will lead to editor's EC status removal. (ping Wikihc as well, since it sort of applies to them too) Hemantha ( talk) 04:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for
your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a
general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as
Talk:The Kashmir Files are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on
reliable sources and Wikipedia's
policies and guidelines. They are
not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.
Kautilya3 (
talk) 14:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I have deleted your recent comment from the talkpage, since it was off-topic, incendiary, and blatant soapboxing. I see that a very similar comment by you had already been deleted. Any repetition of such behavior will result in you being blocked from the page or, depending on your edits elsewhere (which I haven't reviewed), a wider topic-ban or block. Abecedare ( talk) 15:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
By my count, you have made 57 edits to
Talk:The Kashmir Files in the last two days. (Actually, I think you made several more while I was typing this.) You are overwhelming the page with your repetitious posts, and violating
WP:BLUDGEON. I have blocked you from the page for a week. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bishonen |
tålk 15:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC).
I don't think I did that, but I will not appeal this block (you may revert it yourself if you please). Please now point me to some rules that may get me blocked if I don't follow them. Thanks and sorry for taking your time!- Y2edit? ( talk) 18:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at Articles for deletion, Request for comment, WP:ANI, an article talk page or even another user's talk page. A person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". They always have to have the last word and may ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view. It is most common with someone who feels they have a stake in the outcome or feels they own the subject matter. While they may have some valid points, these get lost due to the dominating behavior, which makes others less likely to consider their viewpoints.
which is a wrong accusation (I didn't do that).- Y2edit? ( talk) 11:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view
that problem" here. Okay, no problem. Thanks!- Y2edit? ( talk) 11:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I will read that. Thanks!- Y2edit? ( talk) 16:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Y2edit?, TrangaBellam just asked on this page for you to justify an edit you'd made to List of controversies involving The New York Times, and you removed their post with the edit summary "Please see my reply on the talk page of the article". But you have never as far as I can see edited the talk page of that article. So that's not a good answer. It's your right to remove posts here, but it's certainly a pity you didn't engage with that one in a meaningful way. I take TrangaBellam's post seriously, and am also concerned about the edit you made to List of controversies involving The New York Times. IMO it shows either incompetence or considerable tendentiousness. And it doesn't really help when you add tendentious stuff (indeed exactly the same material as you added to the list of controversies article) and then, when there's blowback, ask for help to incorporate it in an acceptable way, as you do here. It reads to me like you're saying, and I paraphrase, 'But my tendentiousness is good, please guide me how to incorporate it'. Indian politics is a very fraught and complex subject, and I'm not sure you're a good fit for it. You should be aware that I'm considering a topic ban for you. Bishonen | tålk 08:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC).
Despite saying "I will stop editing completely till someone adopts me" [1] a few hours earlier, you have answered the question "Do you have any sources from WP:RSN criticizing that NYT piece?" on Talk:Anti-Indian sentiment by saying "That strike never happened!" [2] That's the whole of your answer. That's "discussion" on such a low level that you're completely wasting other users' time, that they might have used for something constructive. I can't keep blocking you from one talkpage at a time, nor can we wait for you to get a mentor (they're hard to come by, and they don't have any magic pixie dust to sprinkle). Instead, I have topic banned you from Indian politics. See below and do read WP:TBAN to see what a topic ban is. If you violate the ban because you don't understand it, you will not be excused unless you can show have read WP:TBAN carefully first. (It's only short.) Also note that if you're in doubt about whether a particular page or discussion falls in the category Indian politics, you can ask me or another admin before you edit it.
The ban applies to talkpages too, including this one. You're allowed to talk about Indian politics as a component of appealing the topic ban, but not in any other context.
Y2edit, CaptainEEk is listed as ' Not currently available' for mentoring; you can try with someone else. But note that 'Adoption' is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. I would suggest that you first demonstrate that you can edit non-disruptively in areas less contentious than Indian politics before you request the current topic-ban be lifted. Abecedare ( talk) 16:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
only motivation to edit was to promote certain points of view regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions, I understand that every one can add their point of view if the sentence is neutral (with reliable sources) and the opposite view can also be added to make the article conform to WP:NPOV. Thanks!- Y2edit? ( talk) 17:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The following topic ban now applies to you:
You have been indefinitely topic banned from Indian politics, broadly construed.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons explained above
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.
If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 15:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Logged out editing on blocked pages is not allowed. See
this vs first comment on
this thread
Venkat TL (
talk) 09:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I share Venkat TL's concerns and supect that the editor is now editing while logged out as:
and possibly other IPs. Abecedare ( talk) 18:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.