This is an archive of past discussions with User:Moksha88. 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.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Looking at your edit behaviour, it clearly seems that you’ve too much positive view towards Swaminarayan and related articles. You removed sourced content from Morari Bapu which received coverages in multiple, independent and reliable sources. Such out of context removals may lead upto TBAN in which you can edit whole encyclopaedia by leaving that topic. If you’re associated with any affiliate of Swaminarayan like BAPS then you MUST disclose it on user page as per WP:COI.
@Harshil169: Thank you for making me aware. I have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Regarding the comments in the Morari Bapu article, I was disputing its inclusion into an encyclopedia as outlined by Ms Sarah Welch here and thus cited WP:WWIN in my edit summary. Even @Nizil Shah: quoted her in the last final statement before calling consensus and removing the material from the article. Otherwise, please indicate the rationale for sanctions (WP:NOTHERE). Moksha88 (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Moksha88:, nothing to worry. It is just an administrative instructions. If you feel strong and attached to any topic, you should not edit it to avoid conflict and stress. Other topics are there. Still you are free to choose. For Morari Bapu comment, the article on criticism was of sect and should be have scholarly criticism so it was removed while in Morari Bapu article it was about his personal controversy (not about sect criticism) so was kept. Hope it clarifies. -Nizil (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
Hi Moksha88! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Issuing notice doesn't mean there is any problem with your contributions. But it means that you are aware of sanctions in this area. If notice is not issued in 12 months then block can't be applied. Regards,Harshil want to talk?02:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Moksha88! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi Moksha88! You created a thread called Merging Talk Pages at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
You reverted my content to BAPS page and left a message on my talk page. Can I know how was my content disruptive? I didn't delete anybody's content?
--Sanatandharmaway (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
My Reverted content on BAPS page
Hi Moksha88
You reverted my changes on BAPS page and left a message on my talk page that my content was disruptive, how was my content disruptive? Can you elaborate on that?
Inappropriate canvassing on India-related discussions
Hi Moksha88, you recently sent seven messages to other editors' talk pages with the intention of influencing noticeboard discussions. This behavior is known as canvassing, and is inappropriate on Wikipedia. The seven messages were:
On 8 March 2020, you posted (with minor variations):
Question about WP:RS
Hello, I hope you are well. I'm concerned about the arguments raised here. I read WP:RS, and bias is clearly not a reason for sources to be blacklisted in Wikipedia, even if it is a bias against Wikipedia. In fact, there's an entire article devoted to Criticism of Wikipedia which has reliable sources. No examples are provided of a lack of editorial oversight or inaccurate reporting, so it seems the discussion is based more on retaliation than reason. Blacklisting sources without sound reasoning risks NPOV which worries me. In your experience, what's the best way to refute these assertions?
The above message is inappropriate, because it presents an argument to the recipient ("No examples are provided of a lack of editorial oversight or inaccurate reporting"), states an opinion on the discussion ("it seems the discussion is based more on retaliation than reason"), and was directed at specific editors instead of a neutral venue.
On 13 March 2020, you posted:
Worth a Look
Hello, I hope you are well. I'm concerned about the arguments raised here. I think there's confusion about whether WP:DOX applies here and whether Swarajya fails to meet WP:RS criteria, especially since little evidence has been presented in the discussion over the past week. Take a look at these policies and chime in when you get a chance.
The above message is inappropriate, because it directly asks the recipient to participate in the discussion ("chime in when you get a chance"), suggests a position ("I think there's confusion...") relative to the consensus of the discussion, and was directed at specific editors instead of a neutral venue.
It is acceptable to alert WikiProjects and noticeboards of other discussions, but only if the contents of your message are neutral and do not advance a point of view. Please keep this in mind as you edit Wikipedia. Thank you. — Newslingertalk22:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Standard warning
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. — Newslingertalk22:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll add that, having examined the report at Arbitration Enforcement, there is no doubt that you breached our norms on canvassing twice. Please take this warning seriously as I am convinced that a further breach on your part would inevitably lead to strong sanctions being imposed on you. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
