en User talk:Bairagi Ram

Indian Air Force

Please stop disruptively editing as you have done on the Indian Air Force page. Trying to circumvent Wikipedia standards, with illegitimate excuses is unconstructive and severs no one. If you continue down this route you will be blocked from editing -Thank you FOX 52 ^talk! 14:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @FOX 52

I completely understand your point that MOS:INFOBOXFLAG states that flags should not be used in infoboxes as they put undue emphasis on a particular field. But in the case of Indian Airforce, there should be an exception as the article is about the force as whole instead of some individual squadron, command or unit. The flag templates give additional information about the subject which is mentioned in the infobox (as in the case of flag of Air Chief Marshal alongside the name of the Air Chief Marshal)

Also the articles about the other two branches of the Indian Armed Forces - Indian Army and Indian Navy uses flags in infoboxes and it had been there for many years. I am also aware that articles on Wikipedia are indipendent one another and there is no rule stating that there should be homogeneity among articles that are similar (like the three branches of Indian Armed forces), but this is the norm among articles of countries with large airforce that they use flags in infobox. Some of the examples are -

If you would like, we could take this discussion to the talk page of the article to get more opinions about the topic. Regards Bairagi Ram (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The excuse that its somewhere else just means we haven't gotten to them yet -over 200 article don't used them - I stopped at C as to spare your eyes from hurting - flagcons serve zero purpose to the reader other than eyes candy.

do NOT revert again edit warring will get you blocked - FOX 52 ^talk! 20:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FOX 52: These articles do not use flags as there is no separate flag for the air force or their commanders. In some cases there are flags for the same but are not uploaded to Commons. I am with you on the use of flags in infobox should be avoided. But for the articles which do have good quality flag image then it could be used.

I promise you I will not add flags to any article except the articles about the three armies of India. Like I previously proposed we could take the discussion to article's talk, if you are open to the idea. Bairagi Ram (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

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 Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations, 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! 06:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, 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 special powers 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 practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indian Air Force. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - FOX 52 ^talk! 00:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Bairagi Ram (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing differences regarding flag of Ministry of Defence (India)

Hello, User:Bairagi Ram
I have noticed your recent edits to certain Wikipedia pages related to the Indian Armed Forces, some of which have stood in stark contrast to edits made by others. In accordance, I've noted you've continuously reinstated the supposed flag of India's Ministry of Defence (MoD) onto its Wiki page. However, do note:

The MoD is a civilian organization, like the other Union Ministries; although individual ministries may have their own unique emblems, they don't have individual flag - since they represent the Union Government, which abides by the National Flag of India.
There are no sources in the public domain, referenced by governmental/military sources to suggest that the MoD has ever had a flag in the first place. There is neither any historical precedent nor existing reference to support that idea. The Flag Code of India infers that the National Flag shall be flown by all Union/State Departments, and not any other flag.

This shall be the final time I will pull down the flag from the Wiki page; if you do have any evidence to support the so-called MoD flag, do share it, or else this will have to marked as an edit war, as your continuous reverting violates the three-revert rule.

I hope you understand, and will not reinstate something which has been pulled done for good reason. Silver Pavilion (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This shall be your final warning. I have repetitively said that there is no public source for the so-called MoD flag, as it is against the spirit of the Flag Code of India. If you are to revert my edits, provide solid proof or you will be marked for edit warring. Stop making disruptive editing just to suit your own view.

Silver Pavilion (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any edits regarding the Indian Ministry of defence. you must be mistaking me with someone else. thank you for understanding. German2000 (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Katoch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suryavanshi. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate images, as you did at Research and Analysis Wing, you may be blocked from editing. You removed the notice and put an image against that notice, this act was disruptive. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 07:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link of the discussion you shared has only you giving explanation, without any other participant. Let's open a discussion on the talk page before removing the image. Bairagi Ram (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a discussion. Every message on TalkPage is an open discussion. Do not try to OWN pages, you may be blocked. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 04:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Research and Analysis Wing, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 04:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this discussion should take place on my talk page. Articles have their own talk pages for that purpose. And your argument that your edits on the article have not been challenged for long time does not mean they are correct. I also don't think any consensus have been reached on the article's talk page as you did not invited anybody else for the discussion, only your comments are present there. And the edits with logo in the article have been present for much more duration than edits without logo.

Also let the article be as it was before you removed the logo until consensus is reached. Feel free to ping other editors to invite them to the discussion here. Bairagi Ram (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello Bairagi Ram and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Research and Analysis Wing, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Help pages
Tutorial
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing?

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INC

Please stop disruptively editing as you have done on the Indian National Congress page. Trying to circumvent Wikipedia standards, with illegitimate excuses is unconstructive and severs no one. Please use article talk page for any discussion. If you continue down this route you will be blocked from editing -Thank you ZenDragoX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 12:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The colours of INC was added on the article page just a few days ago, without any citations. The only colour used to represent the party is blue. So don't add them before giving any reference. Bairagi Ram (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Indian National Congress for a period of one week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting to be unblocked from editing the article about Indian National Congress. @Zendrago X: is wrongfully adding the colours of the party in the infobox. I asked them to provide any reference for their claim, but they did not do so and just kept undoing my edits. 19 May, 25 May, 29 May
The wrong colours were added on 6 May by @German2000: in this edit. A month have not even passed since the new colours were added, before that the blue colour was there for years. So there is no reason to call my edits as vandalism.
If there should be a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the colours then the version of the article (mainy the colours) which was before 6 May should be published until consensus is reached. Bairagi Ram (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't need access to the article itself to discuss the edits on the talk page. You'll need to show us that you won't edit war before being given access to the article. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Indians are not of British Origin

As long as your ancestors are not British, what's the need to edit Wikipedia history to adjust to British viewpoint? As long as the ancestors of Indians are the same old seafarers who from BCE are into building ships and maintaining a Navy, there is no need to confirm to British viewpoints as they do in Australia and NZ. I request that you acknowledge your ancestors to be Indians and not British. Thanks. Mifiin (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Empire (Indian TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hindustani.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Noble Eightfold Path, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ashtanga.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit deleted edits

Hello Bairagi Ram. I see you deleted the information I added to the main box of the Wikipedia Sanskrit page. You must know I wasn't intending to troll or spread disinformation. Not all unsourced edits are trolling. I am a student of linguistics and a lover of linguistics and world history. And I am new to Wikipedia and what's more, a disaster with tech. I didn't add a reference simply because I just learnt how to add one on visual editing and I really have no idea of how to add one on code editing.You are not the first one to delete one of my edits just because of that. You all could have chosen to verify my information on internet, but you didn't. And I am sure that once you see a source,many of you chill and don't even corroborate the information on a search, something I would have done, by the way. It was as easy as to look for "Sanskrit in Tibet/Mongolia". So it would be very kind of you if you restored my edits including the following information in the box; I will provide you with two sources (I would do it myself but I don't know how to do it and I'm afraid someone will again delete my efforts): -South Asia (since the 14th/4th century BCE )

It's not just ancient and medieval. A large majority of the population of the Subcontinent reveres the language even today. Therefore it's more accurate to say since the 14th/4th century BCE, that is, since the composition of the Vedas (Vedic) and since Panini's standardisation (Classical).

- Indianised Southeast Asia ( since 250 BCE)

Again, Sanskrit is still important there. It's important to add "Indianised", because peripheral areas of the region remained outside the reaches of Indian literate civilisation. Besides, at least geographically, Vietnam (specifically the Kinh ethnicity) is a part of Southeast Asia, but it is Sinic in culture, not Indic, and it's classical reference language is Literary Chinese, not Sanskrit. Indianisation of Southeast Asia began theoretically in 250 BCE during Ashoka's time, you can check it in the corresponding Wikipedia page.

-Greater Tibet (since the 7th century AD)

With "Greater Tibet" I mean all Sino-Tibetan populations who practice Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. Buddhism came to Tibet in the 7th century under the reign of Songtsen Gampo and it came not from China, but from India, and with it came The new Brahmic Tibetan script and Sanskrit. For the Tibetans, as for the Mongolians, Sanskrit was the most refined and sophisticated and sacred language of the world, just like for the Thai, the Khmer or the Balinese. Like for this three, it was the "Language of the Gods". Tibetans and Mongolians were masters at Sanskrit text translation.

-Greater Mongolia (since the 16th century AD)

With" Greater Mongolia" I mean Turkic and Mongolic peoples who practice Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. They adopted the religion in the 16th century and since then, they have fervently admired everything coming from India. That's why they should be considered part of the Indosphere. Because of their love of Sanskrit, they even adopted more Sanskrit loanwords than the Tibetans (although both were slightly purist when translating, as they translated almost every single word into their languages. This while South and Southeast Asians outside the Vietnamese are full of Sanskrit loanwords, Tibetan and Mongol are full of Sanskrit calques).

-Ancient Central Asia (Classical and Late Antiquity to Early Medieval Period)

With the expansion of Buddhism in the Silk Road, there also came Sanskrit. It became prominent in Khotan, Sakastan, Sogdiana... It was lost due to the Muslim Conquests.

That is all. I really hope you can help it. It took some time to do this and I don't know how to do it alone. Here are the sources:

https://books.google.com/books?id=zs1GEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=sanskrit+literature+in+tibet+and+mongolia&hl=ca&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwii47HT9K6HAxXsSPEDHYifAosQ6AF6BAgGEAM

https://books.google.es/books?id=Rrz1DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&dq=sanskrit+literature+in+mongolia&hl=ca&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiW3dTk9K6HAxVBBdsEHXoKB0gQ6AF6BAgMEAM

https://books.google.com/books?id=sluKZfTrr3oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=buddhism+in+central+asia&hl=ca&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-sLm88q6HAxXVgf0HHdqtDkAQ6AF6BAgHEAM Marcgsch (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 06:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please it in more detail, what I have done wrong? Bairagi Ram (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't restore sock edits

That unnecessary infobox was added by sock, don't add it unnecessarily. You want to make unnecessary changes in the article so it's your work to gain consensus, don't ask people who are reverting sock edits to gain consensus. Hbanm (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bairagi Ram kindly stop reverting edits to restore your preferred edits, this can lead to some serious actions. ZDX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 08:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. DrKay (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

By looking at User:DrKay's revision history I found out that they removed the edit made by me on Henry McMahon as on 1 November 2024 which was also previously also made by another user. I have for the past six months have not used any other account except this one for editing on Wikipedia. You can check my edits for any wrongdoing. A lot of my recent edits have been reverted, as a result a lot misinformation and typo had been added back. If you do not find my account suitable to be unblocked, please check my edits and remove the typos and vandalism. Bairagi Ram (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request; you created User:Impostor Crewmate ten minutes before making this request; there's no reason to consider this request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bairagi Ram (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: I made the account just to remove vandalism and errors only from my reverted edits like these ones - 1 2. These edits are improvement for the article. If you think it was not wrong then please unblock me, if not please go through my reverted edits and add them back if you think they are legit. Bairagi Ram (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about your edits at all. Stop creating new accounts. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]