Ikonoblast, I was asked to comment on your edits. Either you back up your stuff with credible references, or you're in for either a block or a topic ban. Your edits across the board have been disruptive and POV pushing and borderline vandalism, I've had to clean up after you on a few occasions. Take this as a final warning. –SpacemanSpiff16:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I find your behavior intimidating, and perhaps violation of WP:Block. I urge you to refrain from such behavior, otherwise, there is Unblock policy too. Good Luck.Ikon No-Blast16:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are not supposed to belong to a cabal, it is better, you either engage yourself in constructive debate,if you can, else leave it on other competent person. You have given no proof of alleged vandalism. All my edit are sourced. Ikon No-Blast16:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, like I said, consider this your final warning. Your block log on both this account and during your time as User:Holywarrior is proof enough that you know your disruptive ways. –SpacemanSpiff17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you not to communicate directly to me now onward. If you do so, I would complain against you for continuous harassment and intimidation to prevent me from debating on certain articles where you seem to have some indirect interest.Ikon No-Blast17:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forward Class
I reverted your move because it doesn't seem like there is no clear consensus on what to move it to. The requested move will allow an uninvolved editor to evaluate consensus, which is the better way to do things. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 05:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indentation note
When replying to talk page messages it is customary to indent ones post by only one additional tab-position (i.e. one "colon"). I noticed that you often use 2 or 3 which makes it somewhat difficult to to parse the discussion. Just a minor point, but I hope you'll look it over. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for participating in WP
ManasShaikh has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
WP:IND Newsletter is back! It's been nearly a year since the last edition, but we hope to bring out issues on a more regular basis now. The India Wikiproject was set up to increasing coverage of India-related topics on Wikipedia, and over the past few months the focus has been on improving article quality. A number of the project's featured articles underwent featured article reviews over the past year. Of these, Darjeeling and Flag of India survived the review process, while the rest were demoted. During the same period, Gangtok, Harbhajan Singh, Darjeeling and Mysore were featured on the main page respectively on August 20, September 17, November 6 and December 29, 2009. Meanwhile, articles on topics as diverse as Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), Marwari horse and Iravan were promoted as featured articles, and respectively appeared on the main page on March 25, May 17 and May 28, 2010. Consequently, the number of FA-class articles under the project's scope dropped from 67 in August 2009 to 63 in June 2010. The number of good articles, however, saw a more than 40% increase, from 91 to 130 during the same period, while the number of featured lists saw a 33% increase from 12 to 16.
Due to the recent policy changes regarding unreferenced Biographies of Living People (BLPs), an effort was started in January 2010 to source all unreferenced BLPs coming under Wikiproject India. 1200 such articles were identified initially and more were added to the list later. Due to the sourcing effort, the number of Indian unreferenced BLPs is down to 565 currently. During February-April 2010, There was a large scale disruption of Kerala related articles by a Thrissur based IP vandal. Editing from a dynamic IP BSNL connection, the vandal changed dates of birth, death and ages of a number of Malayalam and Tamil film actors. Later he added a few international biographies to his list. He also marked some living people like Arvind Swamy as dead. A month long range block was imposed on his IP range two times and each time he came back to vandalise dates once the block expired. Currently the range has been blocked for three months till September 11, 2010.
This picture, shot in India, won the Commons:Picture of the Year contest 2009. Translations of the description in Indian languages are solicited.
Wikipedians in Bangalore have been organising periodic meetups over the past year, in collaboration with the Centre for Internet and Society. The next meetup is scheduled for July 18, 2010. Indian and other Wikipedians from all Wikipedias in various languages are welcome to attend.
A discussion is underway here to reach a consensus regarding the use of Indian number names (lakh, crore etc.) in Wikipedia articles. Please participate and add your comments.
Some unintended vandalism is going on at the Assamese Wikipedia by the sole active editor. This is a request for Assamese-conversant Wikipedians to help resolve the issue.
A discussion is in progress here in order to determine whether non-Western (including Indian) forms of classical music should be referred to by the nomenclature of art music instead of classical music. Please participate and add your comments.
Watchlist the Articles for Deletions page for India related discussions. Opinions from more Indian Wikipedians are required in many of the discussions.
If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of WikiProject India. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 2 – (July 2010)). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
Looking forward toward more contributions from you!
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may mention it at WikiProject India Outreach Department
I know that the article Saini almost resembles an ethnic propaganda, but then the article on Yadav caste is no better. Currently, the latter article discusses all the Yaduvanshi groups (which do not form a single caste, but are disparate ethnic groups claiming descent from Yadu). This article should be limited to the Yadav caste of North India/Nepal (excluding unrelated groups such as Wodeyars, Pandayans etc.), and a separate article should be created at Yaduvanshi/Yadava for covering all the groups that claim descent from Yadu. utcursch | talk20:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Yadav_caste, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. utcursch | talk20:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 2 - November 2010
English WikiProject News
After a missed issue, the WP:IND newsletter is back on track to being a regular bimonthly feature. The Indian WikiProject has seen plenty of online and off-line action, both in English as well as other Indian languages, and we now have a bigger, better format that intends to feature content and news from the English as well as other Indian language Wikipedias.
Reaching out to Indians has been the theme of the Indian Wikiproject over the past couple of months, aiming to involve a greater number of Indians in editing both the English and Indian language Wikipedias. To this end, efforts to set up the Indian chapter of Wikimedia have moved into their final stages, and registration of the society is currently pending. An effort is underway to push for "WikiMarathons" at meetups, where attendees will be encouraged to edit the English and/or Indian language Wikipedias. This is intended to popularise Wikipedia editing among the general public. In addition, a bot to post DYK's from the Indian Wikiproject to Twitter was created and launched by User:Logicwiki.
What's New?
Regrettably, the number of Featured Articles has dropped from 63 in June to 58 at the end of October 2010. Several FAs came up for review and were delisted, while Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India was saved. Meanwhile, Chalukya Dynasty appeared on the main page on July 9, 2010. Hearteningly, the number of Good Articles increased from 130 to 136 during the same period, while the number of Featured Lists remained constant at 16.
The date change vandal mentioned briefly in the previous issue made a reappearance when the range block on his IP range expired in September. Consequently the block was extended till September 2011.
In October there was a heated discussion in the India project noticeboard regarding the copyright status of the Indian party symbols. The discussion was triggered by the deletion of Wiki San Roze's party symbol images by Hammersoft as copyright violations. No resolution was reached, partly because of our inability to explain to Hammersoft how election symbols in India differ from party logos. Comments are requested from anyone with a background in Indian copyright law to clarify this issue.
The Bengali Wikisource, which contains the literary works of many prominent writers of Bengali language including Rabindranath Tagore, has crossed the 5,000 pages milestone. According to List of Wikisource page, Bengali Wikisource is now at rank 21 among 56 Wikisource based on number of content pages.
The uploading of Tamil technical words donated by Tamil Virtual University to the Tamil Wiktionary was completed in October. The words were donated by the Government of Tamil Nadu due to lobbying efforts by Tamil Wikipedians during the runup to the World Classical Tamil Conference 2010 (WCTC) in June. Nearly 70,000 words were uploaded increasing the word count in Tamil Wiktionary from 1,20,000+ to 1,90,000+. This has brought Tamil to the 10th place (from 17) in the list of largest wiktionaries and has earned it a place in the Wiktionary front page logo. In addition, Tamil Wikipedians set up a stall at the WCTC and introduced Tamil Wiki projects to people from all walks of life.
The Hindi Wikipedia and its sister wiki projects migrated to the new vector interface on September 1, 2010. In addition, Hindi is the first (and so far the only) Indian language to be incorporated into the WikiBhasha translation and contribution toolkit developed by Microsoft Research.
Mumbai and Delhi held their first meetups in September, where Wikimedia Board members Barry Newstead and Bishakha Datta met up with Wikipedians and other interested members of the public in these cities. A month later, Hyderabad also held its first meetup.
Arun Ram, Shiju Alex and Barry Newstead releasing the Wikimedia India community newsletter at the nineteenth Bangalore meetup on 24 September 2010.
Wikipedians in Bangalore continued their tradition of meeting up regularly at the Centre for Internet and Society, with the nineteenth meetup in September featuring Barry and Bishaka as attendees, and marking the release of the community newsletter. Along with Delhi and Mumbai, Bangalore is reported to be one of the three cities in contention for the Indian office of the Wikipedia Foundation.
The first Wikimarathon, where Wikipedians and members of the public were encouraged to contribute to Wikimedia projects onsite, was held simultaneously at the meetups in Bangalore and Chennai on November 14, 2010. Wikipedians in Delhi also held a meetup the same day.
The Malayalam Wikipedia held several academies in different parts of Kerala over the past few months.
This interesting discussion on the quality of editing in India-related articles has been underway for on the noticeboard a few days. Feel free to join in and express your opinion.
If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of Wikipedia:WikiProject India. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
This newsletter incorporates content from the WikiMedia India Community Newsletter, September 2010.
Looking forward to more contributions from you!
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may mention it at WikiProject India Outreach Department
Looks like a dirty trick to me. I don't edit wikipedia regularly, so it won't matter to me much. However, user:utcursch has history of incivility and personal attacks on me.So, I don't think I said anything wrong there.
Also, the timing of block when I just tried to reply to Utcursch's edit questioning sources, suggests some malicious intent. I would rather try to expose who was the admin on getafreelancer.com and who else are the beneficiary.
I blocked you as soon as I saw your attack; considering you were warned and this is not the first time to attack people, I made it a 72-hour block; you'll be allowed to reply to Utcursch's edits as soon as this block ends. Please note that threats or attempts to out people or expose them (any people) will result in your block being sensitively increased. I suggest you take these three days to cool down and come back with a cool head, ready to discuss in a collegial fashion. SalvioLet's talk about it!13:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Salvio, why do you think,wikipedia is the only place I can contribute. People are using wikipedia to spread false information. People perhaps have also found ways to derive monetary benefits out of it. Exposing people who are using admin powers for monetary gains is good for wikipedia itself. Remember Esjay Scandal. If I don't get the chance to assert here, I will find some alternative ways. Thanks. Ikon No-Blast13:24, 18 September 2011 (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).
You broke the 3RR with reverts at 11:17, 10:01, 09:52, and 09:24. During this edit war, you personally attacked other editors. To be honest, I was in the process of blocking you for the edit warring and received an edit conflict. You are free to "assert" here, but you must do so within our policies. Kuru(talk)13:41, 18 September 2011 (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.
Unblocking admin should see, the earlier blocks were due to user:VandalPatrol, user:Hkelkar, and an admin user:magicalsaumy, also a close aide of user:utcursh who got caught in sockpuppetry case. Although block log may look like many blocks, the person requesting it has now got permabanned. Ikon No-Blast13:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are claiming Sitush violated policy, you should also show which policy and show the diffs in which he can be seen violating the policy. The policy which you may be looking for may be WP:CANVASS. You have to provide the diff to the canvassing edit now. Then see if policies apply on Sitush too....MWℳ14:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The admin is surely reading/will read this page. To make the situation clearer, you can show a few diffs of Utcursh's personal attacks on you. After that, you can ask the admin to show that he/she is acting in a non partisan manner (by taking action on Sitush for acting in bad faith by indulging in canvassing). Otherwise, you can ask the admin to show some non convoluted argument to show that Sitush was not acting in bad faith and was not canvassing. If this is not canvassing, I too may start doing similar things :-)MWℳ01:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I had meant was that you show some past edit (from before Sitush canvassing comment to Utcursh) which would showcase Sitush's reason for canvassing Utcursh. The diff should show that Utcursh could already be expected to behave in a particular way only.MWℳ 03:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC) You and Utcursh have a history? Utcursh and the Yadav article have a history? Utcursh and Sitush have a history? What? The diff should show that. That is what you need to show.MWℳ03:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[9], and subsequent edit wars on the issue. Look he echoes thoughts similar to Sitush, and keeps on edit warring to shunt the Yadav page and rather direct the users to yadu page, and similar commentary on the topic thereafter on talk page with taunts and abuses. Ikon No-Blast18:47, 19 September 2011 (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).
I see no sign of bad faith. I do, however, see you repeatedly assuming bad faith, and making accusations, threats, and attacks. If you continue then your block is likely to be extended, perhaps even indefinitely. I strongly suggest trying to assume good faith and be civil to other editors: if you do so you are more likely to have a successful and happy time here. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2011 (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.
One funny side of all these is that every time I am blocked I stay longer with wikipedia. I hope my experiment with wikipedia may give some different result this time. We need an alternative, this is becoming an internet evil.Ikon No-Blast14:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo has a Talk page at User talk:Jimbo Wales; that said, I suggest it would be unwise to go directly to the founder of all of Wikipedia, rather than going through the standard Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures. When you have an argument with your neighbor about how loud he's playing his music, you call the cops, and if you don't get a satisfactory response you go to the town council; you don't just show up at the Presidential Palace and demand the guy running the nation get involved. There are a variety of DR procedures, depending on what kind of complaint you have to file, so those are worth looking into. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You MatthewVanitas. Perhaps you are right in suggesting me the standard routes. I may act on your advice very soon. However, if my senses says it appears to be a fixed game, then there is little wisdom in pursuing it. My life principles & family values doesn't allow me to stoop to the level of ppl. who were not so fortunate like me. Ikon No-Blast07:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, so far as any "fixed game" concerns, I would submit that you won't gain much traction with generic declarations of "fixed game" or "endemic bias" (which is a legitimate concern, but often mis-cited as a debate weapon). Instead, if you are encountering "fixed games", conflicts of interests, institutionalised practices which unduly favour Anglos, etc., the more specifically you can identify those, and the more dispassionately you can explain how they negatively impact the Project, the more likely folks are to take an interest or lend support. Anything resembling a personal attack, rant, sweeping condemnation, etc. will alienate potential supporters. WP:DR options are good options to follow if you are in the right by WP procedural guidelines. If you have a problem with biases/flaws in the procedural guidelines themselves, that is a larger issue which is above DR. For that, I'm not exactly sure where would be best to start addressing, but if these biases are evident to you on India topics, WP:INDIA might be a good place to start discussing how to approach the issues. If you have observations on Endemic Bias, Jimbo's page might actually be an okay place to float the topic, or the Village Pump if you want to start gathering interest before highlighting the topic so prominently.
I share your concerns about Endemic Bias, but I also feel that a lot of WP Endemic Bias is a result of the resources we have to deal with (academic and journalistic) which themselves reflect Endemic Bias. It would, for example, have been hard to write a proper book about the Sioux tribe of America in 1870 using American authors, since the bias of the time would portray the Sioux negatively, or if not that romanticise them. Similarly, there are aspects of Indian history/culture which are simply not well or properly recorded in Reliable Sources, thus the frustration of being able to portray them on Wikipedia in a way that does not violate WP:V, or inability to contradict other arguments from "Reliable Sources" which unfortuantely reflect Brahmin, British, Upper-Class, Forward Caste, "Aryan", Male, Heterosexual, or other such biases. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am so glad to listen from you. I am not complaining about undue favors to Anglos etc, because I don't feel that way. I have never tried WP:DR, so I don't know exactly what they are. Since, you are showing so much faith in this process, i believe you have yourself tried it and it works positively, and is not merely a jugglery. I am of the belief processes don't work intentions work. In the present scenario, intentions of some wikipedian are under suspicion. You can see, the arguments that Utcursch gave in his reply on the talk page to refute my cites are attempt to mislead. Check his very first question earlier, where he says, Christ.. Krisna pseudohistorical fact. When I gave him cite, rather than acknowledging it he says, "where it contains abhira, yadava etc." Nobody has pointed out, it contained Bhndarkar's comment on this subject, exactly which he was asking for earlier. Nobody so far has even pointed it to him. His other refutations are equally attempt to mislead. I am open for discussion, and wanted to reply there, infact was typing it when block took place. If this is not game then what is this?? Ikon No-Blast18:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom
Utcursch & Situs case seems fit for an arbcom review. These ppl. have had enough of behind the scene tacts and veiled vandalism, personal attacks and much more than what meets the eyes. I am ready to contribute on this case, if someone joins me, for at least two ppl. are required for arbcom attention. Ikon No-Blast15:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are blocked you may not edit. Attempting to evade that block by getting someone else to edit as a proxy for you is not permitted, and anyone who did so (known as a meatpuppet) would be liable to a block themselves. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have blocked me from editing articles only. however, one should not have any objection if I am trying to contribute by replying to questions asked to me on a different page. I know ppl. were doing it earlier, and there was no objection. Anyway, I really don't mind if you block me indefinitely. However, I would carry a bad image of wikipedia community. I have always been a good editor. It is just the matter of where you edit and not what you edit that makes your reputation. I am just victim of being too active on caste related pages. Ikon No-Blast20:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you think the block is only for articles. No only is that not true, but it wouldn't make any sense, since you were blocked for making personal attacks, which can be made anywhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed! I know admins are the best ppl. to advise on wikipedia policies. I believed you were honest in telling me I can't ask ppl. to edit on my behalf, though my past experience reminds me of some prevalent practices, about which I talked earlier. When you say, I was blocked for making PA, you should also keep in mind there are ppl. who are not blocked for the same. If mocking my situation pleases you. You should know it looked like an attack to me. I request you not to make any such commentary on my talk page, because you are free to make such attacking statements all over wikipedia. BTW, why you could not direct me to a relevant link, which justifies your claim above, so that I may continue to believe in your honesty. Ikon No-Blast06:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article YADAV needs correction. Please include about the various AHIR and YADAV dynasties.
Keep up the the good work. please continue spending time to correct the article YADAV. Your time is certainly valuable and thank you very much for all the efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.118.115.66 (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to point to MWℳ, whose advice you must take in this regard. He seems to be a very capable person and is devoting his time too on wikipedia. temperamentally, he is far better than me and would judge the situation with better accuracy. I am not so active here because of time constraint and so can't promise you much. In fact, I have clients from all around the world who keeps on bothering me, so you are either here or with them. However, whenever free I would surely make some contribution. You should go and take his advice. I too rely on him. Ikon No-Blast07:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
October 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yadav. 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.
Per WP:TPO: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:...Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived." The next time you revert my removal of a personal attack against another editor, you are the one I will seek sanctions against. Your tendentious editing on that talk page is bad enough, but still borderline, but personal attacks are strictly forbidden and may always be removed. If you don't like my removal, take me to ANI. Do not reinstate that or any other baseless attack again. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should dare to give me the diff of revert. concerns you gave were false, because there was no attack there. Also, you do not seem o be fair in addressing the situation neutrally. You seem to be acting in partisan manner. Please refrain from joining any cabal, or give people hints that you belong to one. Rv was necessary because the IP seemed to be bringing the legit source. Ikon No-Blast05:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, my time to eat crow. I was completely wrong, because I reverted the wrong edit. This diff shows me removing the correct section. The section I removed the first time should not have been removed. I didn't pull the right diff out of the history on my first revert. Basically, I somehow looked at the history, saw the addition of a personal attack by an IP. Then, by the time I went to the article, you had added something else, and then the same IP added more info (the stuff you reinserted). I reverted the last one, not noticing it was an earlier edit and section that I needed to get rid of. I hope you can see that the info in the diff linked here is, in fact, a personal attack. I had no intention of removing a link to a proposed source. My humblest apologies; I had not noticed that the IP was both helpful and vicious in 2 separate edits. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hijack
Hi, is it possible that your user account has been hijacked by someone else? Your recent contribution here seems to be a little off-beat, not in your usual style etc. Much of it makes little sense & has peculiar phrasing, whereas usually there is no problem in that respect. My apologies if this is not the case but it is a genuine concern and, yes, it does happen. - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who will Hijack my account! They won't gain much even if they hijack it. Editing as Ikonoblast/holywarrior, with a long blocklog to display, is not an easy task on wikipedia, where previous blocks are used as an excuse for another block. I have never created an account on this wikipedia, even this one was created by someone else, but all edits made through this account are my own. If this is hijacking, I hijacked it before the first edit itself. Thanks for showing concern though.
Because you explicitly stated above that "this one was created by someone else", I have blocked this account as a compromised account. Since you and I are slightly involved, I am opening a thread at WP:ANI to discuss the issue. If you wish to make any comments, let me know and I will copy them there. After hearing other's input, if the block is upheld, I'll put up a full official block notice. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would help if you explain how, if this account was created by someone else, it is that you came to use it? How did the account come to exist if you have never created the account? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your words. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what is in your mind, but what I mean is what I said. Holywarrior account was not created by me. It was gifted to me by one of my friend, a long time back. I was editing anonymously before that. He brought me on this wikipedia and later created this account. You should not have anything else in your mind. Nobody else has ever edited through this account and nobody will ever get access to it. We were just out of school when we started editing this wikipedia. Other guy has either retired or may be editing anonymously, after a sockpuppetry allegation(ambiguously confirmed as me!). I don't know how this is relevant now, but looks like it is your style of having fun. Ikon No-Blast15:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qwyrxian's ANI report does say that they'll be on/off WP for a few hours and that any other admin was free to overturn the block if they felt it to be appropriate. Clearly, as of right now, none who have seen it are prepared to go quite so far. It is an unfortunate situation but, well, the standard of written English seems to have deteriorated lately (it used to be pretty good, and about 100% better than my ability in any of the Indian languages). Even your responses above have rather muddied the waters & this may account for the unwillingness to rescind. Perhaps you have just been tired or something like that but, please, it is really important that suspected compromised accounts are disabled until the issue is sorted. I'll post a note on the ANI report for you now. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not fair. You should go through a sockpuppetry case against me. That should clear the doubt in your mind. I am just being honest with all of you. Ikon No-Blast16:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your writing style has changed, which could slightly limit what a sockpuppet investigation might achieve (and, indeed, could work against you in that specific regard). Furthermore, an SPI would usually take longer than this process and a checkuser has already been done by going down the route that Qwryxian chose. Just be patient, please: I doubt that you are going to die in the next few hours and Wikipedia will certainly still be here (both assuming that there is no ridiculous worldwide catastrophe in the interim). - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my writing style has changed. Your attitude may have changed. You don't need to go for any fresh SPI, you just need to pull the record of only SPI against me. Ikon No-Blast16:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that it might be more sensible not to take pot shots at someone who is trying to get this situation resolved, one way or another? - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How would a really old SPI help when the entire point is that your style of writing has changed in the last week? Did you read what I said above? I've done my best and am doing no more. You'll just have to wait, or try filing an unblock request. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
← For clarity on my end of things, I did not run a check in the sense that I was looking for sockpuppets. I simply verified that the IPs used when the edits in question were made were the same as those Ikonoblast used to edit with in the past. I found nothing irregular. Tiptoetytalk17:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the explanation and Tiptoety's comment, I have unblocked you. You're the first situation I heard of someone having their account made by another person. Just to clarify--I see that the person who gifted you the account no longer edits; be sure that they are not using your account to edit, as every account must be used by one and only one person. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you get to act on Sitush's suspicions to put a block on Ikonoblast. You are heavily involved with Sitush, caste articles, and the caste article on which Ikonoblast is active. WP:INVOLVED does not apply?MWℳ06:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stirring again? Take it to ANI, MangoWong. If you believe that there has been an abuse of admin powers then you should pursue the matter, and if you do not then there is no point in raising it here or anywhere else. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is Ikonoblast who has an undue block log entry now, and it is Ikonoblast who has been through undue harassment, and it would be for Ikonoblast to take it to ANI or WP:AN as they see necessary. I did discuss the issue at WP:AN when I was involved in a similar issue with Qwyrxian. I find it inappropriate that Qwyrxian should use admin tools in relation to you/ your comments. Qwyrxian is heavily involved with you.MWℳ10:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is Ikonoblast's problem then why are you sticking your nose in? You seem to have a tendency to do this: get involved in matters that are not your concern, seemingly with the intention of provoking someone to take action against a party with whom you have a disagreement ... and then backing off after setting up some poor soul as a potential fall guy. Why you keep following me around like this is beyond me, but it is not an occasional thing. It is not fair on the people on whom you visit your campaign & so I repeat, if you have an issue with Qwryxian's actions or with my concern expressed here several days before Q acted then you should personally take it to ANI. If Ikonoblast wants to support your concern on their behalf then they will do so, but please do note that (a) I asked a perfectly sensible question in the first instance; (b) I worked to get the block situation resolved; & (c) Qwyrxian took the matter to ANI straight away. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially hijacked accounts are blocked on sight, because there is a very high chance of danger. Had the only evidence been that presented by Sitush, I wouldn't have even considered blocking. But Ikonoblast said that xe did not create xyr own account. That did not make sense--why wouldn't a person create their own account? As such, I blocked immediately, and then, as fast as I could type, took the matter to WP:ANI. I also unblocked as soon as I saw the further comments, including both Ikonoblast's and Tiptoety's. I unblocked even though the explanation still doesn't make sense to me, but I felt that at least having an explanation was enough to lower my concern to where I felt it could be handled by other admins. I've heard this issue with block logs raised before and it has never made any sense to me--this isn't a report card, no potential employer is going to see the log, and any admin looking at for patterns of bad behavior is required to look at it in detail. Nonetheless, MW or Ikonoblast are welcome to take the matter to discussion forum of your choice. Relevant options that I can think of are WP:ANI (either a new thread or the prior one); WP:AN, or WP:RFC/U if you want a longer, more detailed case. I promise I will respond sincerely and take into consideration any community consensus responses. Finally, I believe that you can attempt to open a case at WP:ARBCOM, requesting that I be desysopped, though I honestly don't know what steps are involved or if you have to first show prior attempts at community resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody else is editing through this account. However, if I am allowed the privilege of getting the edits transferred to a new account, I am ready to let this account go. This would be the fairest thing and would end all the speculation with which I am feeling a bit uneasy.Ikon No-Blast17:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions for asking for a new username are at Wikipedia:Changing username. I'm not exactly sure what the benefit would be; all of your history would still be there, including your block log. Note that if you simply abandon this account and start a new one, you should clearly indicate on your new userpage that this was your previous account. In other words, you can't walk away from your past. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Q, I know I know you have toiled hard to create a blocklog and are worried about your contribution going down the drain, even though they consist of rants on talkpages and senseless blocks. I have given you clean chit above, however I also agree with MW, and there must be many other ways of verifying a compromised account. Let me also tell you, I have no intention of hiding anything, did you ever get a feel of it. BTW, why you assumed I don't know about the change of username, when you are fully aware of I having undergone the same in the past. I just wanted to end the speculation around me whether I am "I" or "We". If you have a solution speak up or just keep your mouth shut. I also can sense what you had thought initially while blocking and why you remained off w/p for a while! I neither bluff nor I like those who bluff.
As far as running away from past is concerned, if you have really analyzed my account you must have noticed I have a big gap of years, without any edits. Had it been my intention I wouldn't have returned using this same account. Also during initial days of my edits I used a sig. while editing anonymously and later acknowledged all of them.
I also know, most admins are/have used socks earlier. Some are even frank enough to admit on their user page. Check, [13], where he writes about his sp ----" I am not going to divulge". I remember, it was earlier, "I am ashamed to tell..." So, be sure of what you are speaking and confirm yourself that you are not misleading others. Whatever be the case I am not the kind of person who will try to take advantage of rules or loopholes within them. In any case I would be carrying my prev identity. I just asked you guys if it is possible to create an account and get everything in place, of course my block log too. This will atleast stop ppl. from reffering to me as "they". Ikon No-Blast06:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard this issue with block logs raised before and it has never made any sense to me--this isn't a report card, no potential employer is going to see the log, and any admin looking at for patterns of bad behavior is required to look at it in detail. Qwyrxian seems to be saying here that an extra unnecessary, entry in the block log is not a problem and this issue does not make sense to Qwyrxian. But in the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Qwyrxian thread, Qwyrxian seems to be taking issue with extra unnecessary entries in the block log. The problem with unblocking them now is that doing so creates the appearance of an extra block in their block log. While it shouldn't actually matter, in practice it can ("That user's got a block log a mile log..."),. Isn't there a self contradiction there? Or hypocrisy? If the issue about block logs does not make sense to Qwyrxian, how could Qwyrxian say that?MWℳ07:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it may not be a great source. I am pretty sure that MangoWong has objected to it before because it only deals with a small area. However, if you want to use it then that's fine - it means that there is more chance that it can also be used for the section about criminality etc that we temporarily removed a while back due to considerations of undue weight. The article has grown since then & so weight is no longer an issue; and, of course, Michelutti is a prime example of an academic who has researched the criminality angle. I've read it before, although in a better format than the one you link to. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. It is a reliable source as far as I am concerned, but I am sure that MW objected to it being used as an RS for Yadav because it only deals with a few villages. That's their POV, time and again. And the copyvio does need fixing - it is easy to do, but "fair use" (per your edit summary to your post above) does not cut the mustard. Just put the quote directly in the article prose, rather than in the note, eg: Michelutti has noted that "blah blah yadda yadda". - Sitush (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
You can if you want. However, it would disrupt the rhythm. Ikon No-Blast
No, adding the words in the main text is copyvio. Have you ever read the policy? You have been around long enough, I would have thought. Just move the quote out of the citation and into the main body of the text - that is the easy solution. As it stands, you have an unattributed, word-for-word copy of what someone else said in the body of the article, and that is not ok. - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, merely switching two words round does not get round copyvio concerns: it is an artifice. Another thing that I have just noted is that in the cited quotation you appear not to have followed WP:PUNCT/WP:MOSQUOTE. This is a minor point - once you fix the copyvio issue (or WP:Close paraphrasing, if you wish me to be more specific), then it is simple to fix the punctuation issue. That's assuming my eyesight is working ok, of course - the quotes around "services" do not seem right to me but it is late, I am tired and I may have got that bit wrong. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Yadav". Thank you.
You have been blocked previously for edit warring & so know the drill. For this reason I am not posting yet another edit warring warning notice here. But please take this message as being such with regard to your actions at Yadav. I have started a discussion: you cannot respond to that discussion and immediately revert. Please self-revert and wait for other people to comment. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't worry about "maybes". I concern myself with your point when it happens, so there is no need to let me know in this manner - just post the ANI subst template on my talk page when you do it, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same Here! You already know this. However, I honor WP:AGF, and also not fond of going there. You know this too. Have you ever seen me issuing warning to anybody??? Let me know. Ikon No-Blast14:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I suggest that you stop making threats about ANI - it makes you look silly, which I am sure you are not. Since you have now yet again reverted the content (this time following the intervention of Fowler&fowler), you are in real danger of being blocked not merely for edit warring but perhaps even for breach of the three revert rule. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yadav. 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.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Yadav, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I'm sure it was accidental, but please be careful not to remove other editors' Talk page comments when you add your own -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly - here you removed a comment by Sitush. As I say, I'm sure it was accidental, but I'm just asking you to be careful. Oh, and by the way, you really should not use "RVV" (which means "revert vandalism") in edit summaries when you simply disagree with the content you are reverting -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have a habit of using "RVV" - see the end of the thread above. You really must get away from it because it is potentially a breach of our civility conditions. - Sitush (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have proof to the contrary, present it on the talk page and get a consensus - do not issue threats to other editors. And I did not issue a warning to Qwyrxian, as Qwyrxian did not issue a threat to anyone -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
You come on the talk page of the article. BTW, you haven't yourself given any diff till date in favor of your claim that I was rmvng some comments. Ikon No-Blast19:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusations of there being some sort of cabal are way more uncivil and disruptive than Qwrxian's asking if you wish to be blocked again. There appears to have been extensive discussion over that content on the article's Talk page, and reverting against the current consensus constitutes edit warring and will lead to your being blocked if you continue - I really don't want that to happen, so *please* go discuss it on the Talk page before you try to make the same change again -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds uncivil but is very much true. You see yourself, you are blindly backing them and accusing me. Earlier too you had said I was removing comment, when actually I was not. Ikon No-Blast20:08, 4 January 2012 (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).
You were engaged in a slow moving edit war, so this block is quite warranted indeed. To tell you the truth, I was about to block you, but was beaten to it by Boing. My block would just have been longer. SalvioLet's talk about it!20:19, 4 January 2012 (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.
i think you have given the diff. No, it can't be! I can't go below a section to delete someone's view. It is surely an admin tool game. I should either talk to jimbo or tke the matter outside wikipedi now. Ikon No-Blast20:17, 4 January 2012 (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).
As an uninvolved admin of nearly five years experience, I would not accept the existence of cabals among admins formed with the intention of determining the form or content of articles on this or on any other subject. If you wish to apply for unblock you must do so on the basis of your own edits, not on those made by other edotors. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"20:34, 4 January 2012 (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.
Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.
As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.
If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide.
Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.
You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.
hello sir why did you leave Wikipedia?I think uh were harassed by Rajputs group people's like, Sitush, Spaceman, regents park, Yamagucci many others ik they are all Mughalputs (Rajputs) I checked all ur edits. Tryant Saurashtrian (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
_in_Amritsar,_India.jpg)
