User talk:Human3015/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Human3015. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Fort and Palace

See http://castlesandforts.blogspot.in/2011/12/what-is-difference-between-castle.html for clarification. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Human3015! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Human3015! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Kashmir conflict

Your recent editing history at Kashmir conflict shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I am giving you this notice early because you seemed reluctant to engage in the discussion on the article talk page. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Your recent editing history at India shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please discuss the issue on Talk:India instead and wait for consensus to be established. Abecedare (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion on the talk page. We can wait and see where the consensus lies on the topic. In the meantime a couple of quick notes: see this page for some pointers on how to format talk-page discussions; and WP:SIGN for how/where to place your signature (essentially, per wikipedia convention you need to only place it at the end of your talk-page message and not in the section heading or the beginning of the post). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Make in Maharashtra into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Marathwada Statutory Development Board

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Marathwada Statutory Development Board requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://msdb.gov.in/htmldocs/aboutus.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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. Amortias (T)(C) 18:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Marathwada Statutory Development Board

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Marathwada Statutory Development Board requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Amortias (T)(C) 22:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Rape in India

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TCKTKtool (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TCKTKtool reported by User:Padenton (Result: ). Thank you.

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm ^X 00:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I unblocked you. See User talk:OccultZone#March 2015 for the reason why. Bgwhite (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Purogami Vicharache Ekmat

Good catch on this. I've deleted the article.

You might want to turn on Twinkle. It adds a bunch of handy functions, such as nominating a page for deletion. At the top-right of any page, goto Preferences -> Gadgets and about the 12th item down on the list is Twinkle. Bgwhite (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Bgwhite:. --Human3015 20:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the All Parties Hurriyat Conference page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for 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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wonders of the World

Category:Wonders of the World, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Simon Burchell: you were satisfied with our discussion, but still its strange that category got deleted. In past it has been happened two times when other users created such category nearly 2 years ago. I 'wonder' why people are so much against this category but not against page with same name and content? anyway leave it. --Human3015 20:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mantha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jalna. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparent sock abuse

Though I know that you haven't asked, you can still check User:OccultZone/sandbox. It describes that why I view this article to have been affected by long term sock puppetry. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone:, yes, good work by you, all these are surely sock puppets, that puppet is really crazy. Hope admin will take some action against it. --Human3015 13:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I got 2 friendly tips for you.

Hey. I think you might find this link helpful (it was for me!). It is pretty much a tutorial on how to indent properly. I noticed that your post above and your reply to me at the Teahouse weren't indented properly. :D Also you should do your best to fill in the edit summary field for every edit you make. Others appreciate it and it looks professional. Your edit summaries don't have to be long paragraphs though, just a few words. Cheers, DangerousJXD (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@DangerousJXD:, Thanks for your tips, can you tell me how to attach references to given info? Whenever I add something to article I just copy n paste ref link between <ref> link <ref>. But when i see others give ref they write properly about date of issue etc. How to do that?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Human3015 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Not to annoy you or anything but you indented your post here wrong. Just one colon for that post and if you reply to me here again then it will be 3 colons. I have left your post so you can fix it. You'll get the hang of it. It's not the most important thing on Wikipedia. :) About references. Doing a "full reference" is tricky. Here is a good guide for doing references. It details how to do a full reference. I recommend doing references the easy way because it's easy. :) Here is how I do references. Just to remind you, I myself am not the most experienced editor here at Wikipedia and the best place to ask questions is the Teahouse. (I'm still learning myself :D. It took me 30 minute to type all this because of coding issues!!!) I am happy to answer your questions though. :) Hope that helps. —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Your guidelines are really helping me. Thank you @DangerousJXD:.--Human3015 19:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem! DangerousJXD (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Grand Ashura Procession In Kashmir distressing edits.

i saw your recent edits on Grand Ashura Procession In Kashmir . it seems you are trying to hide the real facts published in its space. Well your bio reads that you dont discriminate but you do it well. If you are from kashmir territory , you must know ashura procession is banned and it is an open challenge to human rights activists working here and I am one among them. So, don't try to shape encyclopedia when you dont have a concept. I request you as wikipedian and suggest you as friend, try to expand these kind of articles conforming Wikipedia guidelines, and put your efforts forward to protects human rights anywhere you willing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharafat99 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sharafat99:, dear friend, you were writing only one side of the story, that article is full of only one side only, I just added one line of other side that too with proper reference. See, you said you are from kashmir and you declared yourself anti-India, so how one can expect non-biased writing from you?. As a wikipedia editor, we should not pro-India or anti-India, pro-America or anti-America, we just have to write truth with proper references. Anyway, consensus has been made on that page and thats good. But its better you talk via talk page instead of edit summaries. Thank you. --Human3015 19:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bilawal Bhutto Zardari page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for 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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

References to news sources

Hi Human3015, Thanks for adding loads of well-sourced information to the Kashmir conflict page. Can I urge you not to put bare url's as references as you did here: [1]? You can use the format:

 <ref name=KEYWORD>[URL TITLE], NEWSPAPER, DATE. </ref>

Also when you cite the same item multiple times, you can write <ref name=KEYWORD/>, so that you don't generate multiple copies of it in the References section. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, yes, thanks for your suggestions and appreciation. I'm relatively new at Wikipedia, joined 2-3 months ago. I have some problem in attaching references so I attach it bare. I don't know how to create that template automatically that you sent me, i do it mannually many times which takes too long time so many time i attach bare source to save time. Anyway I will research more in it. And you too do have watch on Kashmir conflict article because it is very much affected by vandalism. Thank you. --Human3015 10:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I do references manually too. Once you do it a couple of times, you will get the hang of it. Note that I didn't use any template in the above, it is just [URL TITLE] and a bunch of text. Using a proper citation template is a bit harder, but you can get to it later. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, just got it, while editing, just click on option "cite" then choose "news" from the "templates", there you can add publisher, news title, date in that format. It is better than doing it manually. Cheers. --Human3015 11:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Indic Scripts

Im removing indic scripts from the initial sentence from the articles as per the consensus reached in WP:INDIC SCRIPTS, this is an english wikipedia, the indication of indic script should be limited to infoboxes only,Ankush 89 (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ankush 89:, with whom you made consensus? There should be local name in initial text too. And I'm seeing you are removing indic text from infobox too. Please stop your edits or better you revert it. Its policy of wikipedia to write local language name of each article. Thank you. --Human3015 09:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Human3015, please see wp:INDICSCRIPT. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The consensus has been made by mutual discussion, ask user:neiln, user:redtigerxyz, user:abcedare and many more to mention.Ankush 89 (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an english wikipedia, why dont you understand, Indic scripts r limited to infoboxes only, If you start with your local language indication policy then more than half of the content would be full of transliterations and translations, and i have not removed any native name from any infobox, on the contrary i have extracted the native names from the 'read in another language' such as in case of 'Vishwaroopam', 'Kanchipuram'

@Ankush 89:, i have seen many your deletions from infoboxes, i undid many such deletions, even other people are undoing your local language deletions. Like in Aligarh Muslim University page you deleted their motto in arabic language from infobox, In many city names you deleted local names from infobox. See you history of editing. --Human3015 12:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ankush 89:, and what you are talking about half content will be transliterated? Its just matter of one word in local language. Nothing else. --Human3015 12:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Human3015, u plz 1st read WP:INDICSCRIPTS n den talk Ankush 89 (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ankush 89:, please don't make new section each time, anyway, i have read that link, its 3 year old matter. Just tell me why you deleted non-English matter from some of infoboxes? You yourself saying that you don't delete it from infobox. --Human3015 12:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Kanchipuram, in case of this city, i had added the local name and u removed it by giving an exactly opposite reason Ankush 89 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marathwada, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mughal and Nizam-ul-Mulk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Solapur

For the Solapur city, to avoid debate for Hindi and Marathi, i have used The devnagari script which is used to write both the languages Ankush 89 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Local language

Dear Human3015, instead of writing the local language initial text, we can describe how the native language is nourished, flourished by the residents, any literature or cultural related program of that city, Any Sahitya Sammelan, We can provide inline citations and proper references, even a one step ahead, we can upload high resolution images of any linguistic and notable personality of that city or of any linguistic oriented cultural events by first uploading it to wikimedia commons. Ankush 89 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ankush 89:, I don't know what people have problem for addition of just one local language word which is also official language of that area. I'm not talking only about Indian languages but I'm talking about all non-English languages. Like you deleted Arabic language motto of Aligarh Muslim University from its infobox which was wrong. Anyway if you are deleting local language stuff from intro or lead then please make sure that infobox has local language name and if infobox doesn't has then add it. And it was mistake by me about Kanchipuram. And you idea of Sahitya is nice, but uploading photos to wiki is difficult task, we need original photos. --Human3015 22:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Mar4d (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Make in India shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You are at 3 reverts - any more reverts in the 24 hour period will result in sending it to the 3RR noticeboard. Ravensfire (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi Human3015, You have received several edit-warring notices already. If you don't slow down and discuss things, you are liable to get blocked. Please read WP:BRD and follow the guidelines. Just friendly advice! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

consensus - and where consensus exists

Please stop claiming a "consensus" exists [2] . The "consensus" on the topic of "sectors" since the article has begun is to have no coverage. Since you started adding it, it has been removed by multiple editors indicating that there is no consensus to include it. That one person has said "we can include a brief summary" does not equate to a "consensus" for including extravagant detail. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:, you were not even ready to discuss it on talk, earlier biggest version was edited by some editors but recent smaller version was only edited by you repeatedly, that too without discussing. Anyway, I just made smallest version of it, that first version of very very big section now ended up in one single line. Hope so this matter is resolved now. Thank you. --Human3015 13:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It is getting harder and harder to assume good faith about your editing when even after the editor responds to you and explicitly states that you should not presume that their spelling correction of a word means anything more than they corrected the spelling of a word you continue to present the edit as actions supporting you.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Anti-sentiment

Pakistani and Chinese citizens have hatred towards India, then can Anti-Indian Sentiment article be published by me, even i will provide relevant sources?? Ankush 89 (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ankush 89: Mitra, Anti-Indian sentiment article already exists and I have even added anti-India sentiments in Bangladesh after recent World cup cricket match controversy. --Human3015 15:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry re Mitra, i wil take care in future about indic scripts Ankush 89 (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Digvijaya Singh. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I have added sources, I will even add more sources when media and other leaders criticized Digvijaya for his "sahab" remarks. Just wait for sources to add. In front of each name source was given. I will rewrite that section with more and more sources. Thank you. --Human3015 03:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH, which says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

You added the following (unsourced) paragraph to Digvijaya Singh:

Digvijay is repeatedly criticized for calling terrorist or anti-national persons with respectful names. "Sahab" and "ji" are respectful words used as suffix after name of respectful person in Hindi language. Following is the list of terrorist or anti-national persons to whom he referred with respectful names.

Even if you provide sources for each of those sentences, unless a source discusses in its entirety the "'Sahab' controversy" (as you dub it), you cannot add it to the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz:, Ok, my apology for that, I will quote only what other leaders said about his "sahab" remarks. I will also provide sources where they exclusively uses word "controversy" over his "sahab" remark. Moreover his latest "sahab" remark came just yesterday and it became matter of debate in national media. It is important enough information to mention in article.

And in my earlier version I used words like "terrorist" and "anti national persons" without sources just because I linked pages of Osama bin Laden, Syed Ali Shah Geelani there which itself uses these words in their articles. And I used word "criticized" because individual sources which I provided do said that "Digvijaya 'slammed' for Sahab remarks" etc.

Anyway, Thanks for your help, I will improve the article. And I do accept that I'm relatively new at wikipedia. --Human3015 03:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

You should self revert this edit, that case not going to be taken because it was a content dispute and the filer is now blocked indefinately, it has been so many days, I don't think that he would come back. There are no chances that anything will happen there, it is a declined case. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Beyond My Ken. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: Well thanks, I already said there I'm relatively new. I just wanted to express my views. Thanks again. --Human3015 10:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Digvijaya Singh. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.

Please see WP:BRD and obtain consensus for your addition. You boldly added it and were reverted, so the next stage is discussion. You may wish to familiarise yourself with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP also as the article in question has been the target of a fair few disruptive edits. Thanks. Sitush (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Digvijaya Singh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sitush (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Human.. Please let Sitush know that you are not going to revert anymore, it is important to have you unblocked on en.wiki. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush and OccultZone:, yes, I will not revert it anymore, but it is sourced and relevant material written with neutral POV. Anyway, thanks both of you for guidance. --Human3015 13:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Indian subcontinent shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. lTopGunl (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mar4d (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Owaisi

I have taken it to talk page, understand BRD. Making a comment in the edit summary of taking it to talk and never doing it yourself is not really correct. Please explain there why this comment is required. -sarvajna (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Humanist, since you are new and are still figuring out how things work here, please take this advice. WP:BRD describes what to do when somebody reverts your edit. You need to open a discussion on the talk page and come to a consensus before you do the edit again. Repeatedly reinstating your edit constitutes edit warring. For the other WP:AN3 referral you currently have, your best bet is to self-revert the last edit you have made and apologise for not knowing the correct procedure. Otherwise, you will get a punitive block and you would have damaged your reputation. All the best. Kautilya3 (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Might be interested

You might be interested in looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Review of admin actions, those "3 more editors for making 1-2 reverts" includes you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone, I'm already on verge of getting blocked here. But I'm happy for that, I need a break. --Human3015 09:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Solution: Just self-revert and mention that on edit warring noticeboard. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your statement at the Arbitration requests page

Don't be too hard on yourself. We all make mistakes, particularly when we're new and don't know how to do everything yet. While I admire you a bit for going there to take the blame, which is something a lot of people wouldn't do, don't hold it against yourself, and if you ever want any help, preferably not on Monday-Wednesday US time when I'm at work, drop me a note and I'll see what I can do. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it is our system that is mostly to blame. When a new user comes, they make mistakes, and we end up reverting them. Once they get a hang of things, they start reverting others. If they butt heads with somebody else who is in the same state, an edit war ensues. We need to find ways of breaking in new users more gently. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on Indian subcontinent

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Human3015 reported by User:Mar4d (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Doval

He is eligible for that category because he lived there previously, and the article says 7 years. You don't have to be a current resident. See all other expatriate categories and the way thousands of articles are categorised. Also, you really need to stop hounding me to articles. This is becoming a troubling pattern and if there is more of this, then I might need to consider some form of intervention. Mar4d (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d, on which basis you are charging me of "Hounding"? My area of editing includes most of India-Pakistan related articles, and I have nearly all of them on my watchlist. Your expectation from me is that I should not edit or touch any article that you are editing, otherwise you will charge me of "hounding". You have more than 52,000 edits, tell me how many of them I reverted if I'm "following you"?. You really can't direct me that which articles should I edit. And regarding Doval article I have self-reverted my work until consensus achieved on talk page, and you should write this on Doval's talk page where I already started discussion, because your work already reverted by another editor too recently, so everyone should know that why that category is important. It is not my personal matter to tell only me. --Human3015 17:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d, You will write "Kashmiri militants" as "freedom fighters" and you expect that no one should revert your such vandalism, otherwise you "might need to consider some form of intervention". --Human3015 17:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Humanist, welcome back! Mar4d is a bit over the top in accusing you of hounding. However, I would agree that regularly reverting somebody's edits gets a bit tiresome. When dealing with editors that you know well, it is better to adopt 0RR, i.e., don't revert at all. Open a talk discussion instead. This applies to Mar4d as well. Both of you know that reverting an edit won't achieve anything because the other editor will re-revert. You will have to go to the talk page sooner or later. So, what is the point of a needless fight? My two cents. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, today he first charged me of hounding regarding page Kargil War and if you see I don't have a single edit on Kargil War and no question of reverting. I have edits only on Kargil war talk page. I took part on Admins notice board regarding Kargil war then too he had problem, that page was on my watchlist because Mar4d nominated me on that same page and Kargil War is my area of interest and was on watchlist so I took part in discussion. And about doval, I didn't reverted him directly, I was reading article and I felt that category is not needed so I just edited it giving edit summary, later when I get to know that it was added by Mar4d so I self-reverted it to avoid possible fights, but even after self reverting he came to my talk page to harass me, and to stop me from editing. --Human3015 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining. My recommendation of 0RR still stands. That is the easiest way! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

ARC

Having seen your comment at ARC. Main problem with Bgwhite was, that he protected the page where he was working as an editor, it is considered as misuse of admin tools. Then he had blocked me for 24 hours in 29 April, something he couldn't because there was no prior warning or need to block, and since he was WP:INVOLVED with me, he should have asked other admin to block. Further details of similar incidents can be found here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Biharis in Bangladesh

I edit that article on the 24th and exactly two days later, you turn up at that article. Your behaviour is clearly becoming tedious. Under what pretext can I not believe that this is yet another instance where you've followed me? How simple is it to ask to lay off and stop hounding wherever I go? Mar4d (talk) 08:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d:, instead of harassing me and talking out of focus like new editor, better you write on article talk page and give valid reasons for your unexplained move of the page. What sources you have?? --Human3015 08:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not harrassing you. Repeatedly following another editor around to articles you've never edited before, and confronting their edits is a habit known as WP:HOUNDING. It is not productive behaviour. I'm afraid I formally need to think about intervention now. Mar4d (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d:, please go ahead. Best luck. --Human3015 08:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Humanist, my debate proceeds in a precise policy-bound manner, which is the only way to get a resolution. If you butt in the middle with extraneous arguments, you will divert attention from the thrust of my point. So, please refrain from doing that. (Religion is not at issue here. Neither is Indian Bihar. So, please don't bring them in.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, thanks for your suggestion, Discussion gone on some off topic issues, but religion does matters, Term "Bihari" doesn't suggests us that they are muslims, urdu speaking and stateless. "Bihari" can be Hindu or Muslim or Christian, Hindi speaking or Urdu Speaking or Bhojpuri Speaking, statless or citizen or NRI. Anyway, you opposed move but didn't signed it. Thank you. --Human3015 13:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. lTopGunl (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

3RR

You've made more than 3 reverts. You have to self-revert. Please use the talk page to discuss the existing issues. Content can be modified subject to consensus there. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d, that section already has consensus of everyone, except people from your group. Widely discussed already. --Human3015 18:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Human3015 reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: ). Thank you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bishonen | talk 19:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk discussion

Hi Humanist, welcome back. Unfortunately, the last message you wrote on the Stranded Pakistanis talk page was quite long and incoherent. You might want to replace it with a shorter and clearer message. The standard talk page post is generally 3-4 lines long. Longer messages are acceptable only if it is a very deep question and you write it very carefully and clearly. Even if it is clear, people will complain about "walls of text" if you attack bombard them with long messages. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, well thanks, I think attacking personally someone either in long message or in 4-5 lines should not be allowed, I have not attacked anyone in my message rather I explained my point in detail, that discussion is going so long so it deserves one long comment to explain that term properly. And that comment is "coherent" or "incoherent" is personal perception and opinions can change personwise, I will not comment on that. Still I can sign that comment twice to make them look like two comments. --Human3015 11:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean that you were making personal attacks. I clarified above. I think you are valuable for Wikipedia. You have certainly brought up issues that I didn't know of before. If you calm down and follow the advice of the experienced editors, you will have a long and productive life at Wikipedia. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, actually I was blocked for 3 days and in those days many things came into my mind to talk about that issue, it could have been very long comment but I restricted it to current version though still its a long message and I still have many things to say about that topic. And thanks for your appreciation, me too want to be a good editor or sensible editor. And you are a good editor and you are good in maintaining NPOV, but many times you became very much Idealistic. And I'm still learning, day by day I'm learning new things from Wikipedia. You have some info and pages linked on your user page, that too helping me. Thank you. --Human3015 12:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Idealist!" It has been a long time since anybody called me that. I just try to be a good Hindu, having been taught Ramayana since age 4. Was Rama an idealist? Wikipedia is the best tool we have for bringing the "truth" to the people. When there are conflicts all around, religious, nationalistic and ideological, Wikipedia policies allow us to cut through all of them and find the right information that should be shown to the world. It is a tool of immense power and an equal amount of responsibility. We better be idealists to make the right use of it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 23, 2015)

The term Buggy is generally used to refer to any lightweight automobile with off road capabilities and sparse bodywork. Hello, Human3015. The following are WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selections: Buggy (automobile) Pepperoni Australian Aboriginal sacred sites Paparazzi Atmosphere Previous selections: Types of chocolate • Deep frying • Food industry Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: EuroCarGT (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions