Would you please let me know why? I read at WP:IU and my username does not seem to violating any policy. If you can let me know, then I can fix it if necessary.
It's obviously a disruptive user name as you've been told before. We don't allow user names like PriestsSuck or MinistersAreFrauds, especially if they're editing related articles. --NeilNtalk to me01:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Swamiblue. Concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it at the page for requests for comment on usernames. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name at Wikipedia:Changing username following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. NeilNtalk to me02:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No - no admin said it was "fine", they said that it needed to a) be discussed with you first to change it voluntarily, and b) if not, take it to UAA. the panda ɛˢˡ”10:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Pramukh Swami Maharaj shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
Your recent addition, made several times, to this article is not within the guidance which I gave to you earlier. Accusations by two gurus, not backed up by any concrete evidence, with no indication of judicial proceedings and with a firm denial by a source having at least some degree of authority, are essentially gossip. This comment is therefore a violation of biography of living persons policy and must not be repeated; you at significant risk of a block here. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"10:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies --Anthony Bradbury"talk". I did place this information on the talk page for some time and since no one discussed it, I edit the article based on my understanding. I will investigate if there is further judicial proceedings. I do find it peculiar that I got it edit warring warning on my talk page but not on the other user who didn't even discuss the cited edits initially. I have asked the user that warned be NeilNtalk to me who was contacted right away by his friend bladesmulti for help and that I felt was odd because I was really wanting to discuss this issue before I made any edits but then once it was made... Anyway I will try to work on articles in my sandbox and get approval from some users on the talk pages before making edits. I appreciate your support.Swamiblue (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my reasoning here and Bladesmulti is not my "friend". He participated in your RFC/Username and probably saw I was the one who was dealing with your editing. --NeilNtalk to me04:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been accidental, but when you cut-and-paste an editor's signature, as you have done with mine above (the "my apologies" post) it appears to be a post from the editor concerned, which at least in this case it was not. Please do not do this.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"11:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
Swaminarayan Mandir, London <http://www.mandir.org>, also popularly known as the [[Neasden Temple]]) was opened in 1995. Constructed entirely from Marble and Limestone, the temple is popular amongst
The history of BAPS has not been without "controversy and division.<ref>name=Williams 89>{{cite book|last=Williams|first=Raymond|title=An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism|year=2001|
African BAPS followers broke away and founded the Yogi Divine Society.<ref>name="Jones 2005 8890>{{cite book|last=Jones|first=Lindsay|title=Encyclopedia of Religion|year=2005|publisher=Thomson
Okay thanks. I will read more into it. Also when I click my archive button which only has the number 1 on it, it takes me to a blank page whereas on other users it actually takes them to the archived pages. What do I do about that?Swamiblue (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Title change
You recently made a title change on the BAPS page and posted your edit as a minor change (This is your edit). If you are not aware, the title change has been previously discussed over by editors in the Talk page where a consensus was reached. If you think you have a valid argument to make for the title change, consider sharing your views on the talk page before making similar changes to the article. For now, I will revert your edits hoping to see your engagement over the talk page with regards to this. Take note that each article has a talk page where any issues with an article are discussed. Before making an edit to another article, stop by the talk page to see if your edits have been discussed before or is currently being discussed. Leave me a message on my talk page if you need further clarification. Kapil.xerox (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did respond to the title change in the talk page but no one responded. I am not sure why it said minor edit? I do find it strange that the last time you edited an article was back in August but after a small edit to BAPS, you reappear out of no where which you have the right to, just find it odd. I will undo your edit and YOU may continue the discussion. Do read WP:OWNWP:OWNER and WP:OOA.Swamiblue (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added my views to the discussion on the talk page. A couple more editors agree with me that it is a historical event in the overall development of the organization. Well, August isn't a long time ago. The last time the edits stood was when the title remained at "Schism". That is where the editors had reached consensus. Thus, your editorial change detracts from what was originally agreed in the end with no further contentions. Your arguments do not respond to the questions raised by the consensual view. Kapil.xerox (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss on that articles talk page. I am sure that User Anastomoses will be there supporting you but it's okay. My edits reflects the actual citation. I would like a wider pool of discussion from non-members of the organization as well because the initial inclusion of the word bhagwan throughout the article does show the possibility of members of this group watching and monitoring this article. Swamiblue (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone you recent edit where you undid me citing other arti has translation. Please note, the aarti/translation is unencyclopaedic, unsourced, the translation is original research, and the excuse 'other aarti has translation' is not a valid reason. You cannot argue that just because x is mentioned, why can't y, because then in that case, I can be mentioned on any article as well. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add the citation. It's is sourced from An introduction to swaminarayan Hinduism. There are two versions of the aarti, an original that first sect follows and and then the changed version that baps uses. Swamiblue (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The violation of WP:3RR is obvious. However, the longer-than-normal duration is based on this comment. You haven't been directly blocked since June 2014, so what block were you referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, is this comment for me? I think you misplaced it? Also could you explain why you blocked me for the 3RR rule but not the other user who instigated this by changing the article without reaching a consensus first. I am curios to know why all the blocks or comments in the past relating to you blocking me or personally making an agenda to make sure that I am blocked comes from you. At this point, I believe you are abusing your administrative powers and may personally know user:kapil.xerox because you did not even comment on the talk page so that means that he contacted you and you blocked me but not him. You have threatened to block me multiple times in the past as noted here [[1]] and [[2]] and I do not believe you can be trusted to remain unbiased because of your friendship with the other user. I would like to request another administrator after my week has passed to see if you need to be reprimanded and also temporary block the other user for violating the 3RR rule first and using biased language to promote an agenda.
As I read the comment again, maybe it was intended for me? I stated my points above but I really believe that you are using your authority to favor sides. I am trying to keep Wikipedia neutral and follow the rules but with your agenda and continues responses to the leash the other user has around you, it makes it difficult to work with you. Swamiblue (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you a question about a comment you made. I linked to the comment. In the interest of cutting more to the chase, I'll quote the sentence you wrote on the article Talk page: "I am not longer blocked so keep that in mind when you speak to me." And I'll repeat my question: what did you mean by that?
As an aside, the other user did not violate 3RR; they reverted three times; you reverted four. However, I warned the other user that if they reverted again, I would block them. Indeed, the present state of the article is your version.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response Bbb23, it was my fault for the 3RR rule and will ensure that does not happen again. You state that the current version of the article is "my" version but currently it is not nor is it my version in general.
When I was made the comment "I am no longer blocked so keep that in mind when you speak to me." it was a response back to user:kapil.xerox regarding his comment that I am a previous sock and I should not be editing his religious group.
Also the BAPS article is currently extremely biased. The lead of the article attempts to minamalize the fact that this is a splinter group from the original sect based on an interpretation. This issue must be addressed by you because that user has many friends that he pings and emails when he needs to reach a consensus. I provided a source on usage of the word interpretation over doctrine and yet I was accused of no citation. Also this lengthy article is so weighted to portray itself as the correct interpretation, it makes virtually no mention of the legal proceedings that took place that separated the group from the original. This is the biggest reason that this group is allowed to exist and not follow the authority of the original group. Also in the information box, the other user is adamant about using the word formation over established due to biased reasons. I feel that I should be unblocked but more importantly your assistance in this matter is appreciated more. Lastly, I notice that you are extremely busy on wikipedia and I appreciate you taking the time out for this issue.Swamiblue (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Swamiblue, it was your version when I posted my comment. It changed after that but not by kapil, but by others, one of whom, an IP, was also blocked (not by me). I appreciate your recognition that you violated 3RR. However, two things remain before I would unblock you. At this point, just like kapil, you have a history of edit warring. That means if you're unblocked you shouldn't be reverting on the article at all, even one revert. Instead, you should be discussing the content dispute on the Talk page in an effort to achieve a consensus as to how the article should read. I won't intervene on the content dispute. If you believe the Talk page is insufficient, there are other dispute resolution mechanisms you can use.
In addition, I'm sorry, but I'm still hung up on that phrase you used on the Talk page. You're saying that kapil accused you of being a sock of another account. I assume you're denying that you're a sock, right? If so, why would you say that you are no longer blocked? If you were found to be a sock or you were blocked for being a sock and then unblocked, then your comment might make sense. Otherwise, I still don't get it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will try to address both points Bbb23 : First, I do not understand why I should not revert the article when Kapil makes changes to the article using weighted language and continuously adds extremely unnecessary and whitewashed language to confuse readers. The user was adamant about keeping the 100K donation from the Toronto mandir to charity on the lead page of the baps article. If you compare the baps temples, his editing the toronto temple is absurdly long and demonstrates his bias towards this topic. So I am trying to clarify if Kapil makes changes without reaching consensus, and just changes the fundamental encyclopedia meaning behind the article how are we allowed to make changes and then if do the same I have to reach a consensus? Something is off or I am not understanding.
Article is fine:
User:K added biased wording
User:S reverts
So why doesn't User:K have to explain his use of biased wording in the lead article?
Second point: I am no longer a sock or engaging in any type of multiple account activity. I have learned my lesson and my goal is improve articles constructively and stop users biased language to promote their agenda especially with religious groups. So when I said I am no longer blocked it was a response to this comment made by kapil where he said "Your editing history has shown extreme bias towards Swaminarayan and BAPS related articles. And you are quite aware of why you had to be blocked. I won't let your newer edits further disrupt this article." I found that comment to be out of line since there are so many valid points that I have made in my older sock accounts but because I was an sock, those points were swept under the rug and never responded to and you can see that in the baps talk page. This time I have come clean and cleared my name and this user wants to call out my history then address the points that the legal issues need to be addressed in the article as much as the "interpretation" vs "doctrinal" issue that kapil wants readers to get. The mission of this group is to make sure that people believe that this splinter group is the correct theology when it is legally, historically and physically a different ideology then the original group.
Lastly, I would greatly appreciate it if you can at least weigh in on whether the baps page needs to have or is warranted in having a dedicated section to legal separation that occurred in Indian courts that officially separated the two groups. There are so many issues with the article that I can work with users in hopefully resolving but on this point, I wish to have your input. As far as the unblock request goes, am I allowed to place a request for unblock now or should I wait. I plan on going to the talk page but your advice on the above matter will help me more then getting either unblocked earlier.
@Swamiblue, I now understand what happened over a year ago. When I looked at your block log recently, I saw both the block and the unblock, but the basis for the block was your (old) username, so it didn't occur to me that socking was involved. I've now taken the time to review your history during that time (or at least some of it), and in addition to discovering that I was involved in everything (as soon as I saw your old username, it came back to me), I sorted it all out. So, I now understand your comment on the Talk page. We can put that issue to rest, and I'm therefore inclined to unblock you because I would not have blocked you for an entire week had it not been for that unusual comment.
To your credit, though, you are more interested in what to do after you're unblocked than you are in being unblocked. Unfortunately, on that point I don't have good news. Again, I will not get involved in the content dispute for a number of reasons, but first and foremost, if I do, I can no longer act administratively as I would be WP:INVOLVED. All I can do is restate the principles involved in a content dispute on Wikipedia and the policy involved in conduct issues. I'll take the second point (conduct) first. Both you and kapil now have a history of edit warring on the article. That means that both of you need to avoid resuming that battle or you risk being blocked. As to the content, you must achieve consensus to implement a change. You can't just say that because editor x disagrees with you and agrees with kapil, for example, that means editor x is a friend of kapil and it's not fair. Editors - even friends on wiki - have a right to agree with each other. You shouldn't assume that the agreement is based on ulterior motives. Wikipedia doesn't work that way unless there's very strong proof of collusion.
So, with all that in mind, do you want to be unblocked? You don't have to make an unblock request. Just let me know here, and I'll do it. Thanks for your patience.-- (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would like to be unblocked. Thanks for reviewing my history because it is a long one. As you said that, "As to the content, you must achieve consensus to implement a change." On March 13th, Kapil added a new lead that is weighted and unwarranted in terms of content. That user did not reach consensus to implement such a significant change. Am I allowed to revert or would you allow to semi-protect the article until a consensus is reached? Also, you state that friends should have the right to agree with each other unless there is strong proof of collusion. Every time kapil makes an edit, a consistent group of other users come to his aid to reach a consensus. That is why I am hung up on this issue more. If your religion and founder has an extremely questionable and controversial break from the parent group but there is no reference to the schism but sole emphasis on doctrine, you as a reader and as a administrator have to see that this is collusion and the whole article becomes a violation of neutral point of view. Perfect example of this is when user:Sacredsea came to assist in for the lead change. That user addressed only the biased points made by kapil but did not answer any points regarding the legal separation in the discussion section and removed mention of the provisions for other legal matters from the article without explanation. If you can't be directly involved, I would appreciate at least some occasional monitoring of the related subjects because it is extremely frustrating when user of Wikipedia use it to promote their group in a certain way knowing that they can get away with it due to their connection.Swamiblue (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how do I get your attention so that you are notified. I just copy and paste your name in brackets but in your last response, you did not do that so I did not get a notification that you responded. Is there a way of doing that so that users can know if they are mentioned when wanted?
After I leave this comment, I will unblock you. I'll make it clearer. Don't revert on the article. As for Kapil, that change was a while ago and, if I recall, before the edit war (or perhaps the beginning of it). There's nothing wrong with changing an article generally. It's only when that change is followed by a battle that it becomes problematic. Although I am warning you not to revert, that doesn't mean that you can't notify me if another user is reverting who shouldn't. You can do that on my Talk page. But don't report simple disagreement. I'm interested in conduct.
I disagree with your statements about collusion. You're simply going to have to get editors who agree with your views. If you can't, then there's nothing you can do. Don't forget you're closer to this than other editors, making it much harder to be neutral. It's generally not a good idea to edit articles that you have a strong personal interest in, particularly when it comes to articles about religion, nationality, or ethnicity. "Truth", for better or for worse, is not the key concept in Wikipedia articles. First, don't forget that what is one person's truth is not necessarily another's, so "truth" is an elusive concept. What matters are sources that support what you say and a consensus that those sources are reliable. I hope this makes sense to you because it's the only way you'll survive at Wikipedia.
As for notification, I get notified when you use my name properly. I don't normally "notify" people on their own Talk pages as it's generally unnecessary. Make sure you have the right boxes checked under Preferences/Notifications.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I waited over a day almost two but you still have not unblocked me Bbb23? Am I missing something? I expect you to throw me a lifeline if I ever need help from an admin after making me wait this extra time! ThanksSwamiblue (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I unblocked you when I said I would (see here). What makes you think you can't edit? You should have notified me (or another administrator) earlier than now on the offchance that I forgot to do what I clearly said I would do.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the block notice banner was still there so I did not attempt to edit. I will archive this message and resume my act ivies.
After unblock
@Swamiblue, this change you made to the article after being unblocked is much less extensive than the change you made before you were blocked. However, the recent change is a small subset of the earlier change, meaning that it affects a couple of parts of the earlier change in a similar fashion. Thus, in my view, it is a revert in the sense that you are restoring part of "your version" to the article. This is something I warned you against, although despite my repeated explanations, I was never confident that you understood. I suggest you self-revert and go to the Talk page with the change. At this point, I'm not going to block you again, although I thought about it, but if someone complains about your change as a continuation of the war, I may feel compelled to block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are not being reasonable. I am not trying to restore "my version" but rather keep a unbiased version and reach a consensus. There are many additions that I will be making regarding the legal schism of the group and I know its going to get the members of the group irritated because they want total control of the article. I left an explanation on the talk page, did not use the word interpretation yet, and another more experience reverted the fluff statement in the introduction. You are becoming a bit hostile even though I have followed your advice and I also have asked you many times to weigh in. If that is not possible in the talk page, then we can discuss things I am working on here. Swamiblue (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I would request you to stop your personal attacks a third time now. You have been actively making personal attacks to editors. If you continue your behavior, you may run the risk of being reported to an administrator. Here are the latest notable diffs (I haven't included the old attacks) : (diff one, diff two, and diff 3 where you accuse me of having a leash around User:Bbb23). I would politely request you to cease from making personal attacks otherwise I will be forced to report you. Your cooperation in this matter would be highly appreciated. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to make amends for some of those comments. I can see how someone can interpret those words as off putting. Unfortunately, I was frustrated with the blatant conflict of interest and assumed ownership of articles based on the editing patterns on BAPS and related articles. I did warn you on your talk page so maybe reading some of those policies might help. Hopefully we can resolve our issues and you can observe how I expand the article regarding the court proceedings and legal separation while removing the biases. Thanks Swamiblue (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2015 (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 have blocked me for three reasons and I want to address them all. I have not made any reverts at the Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha after your warning, only discussed the points on the talk page and made edits that were not in contention. I waited for days for comments regarding the parts that I edited and no one responded. I only recently revert when seconds after you blocked me because user:kapil.xerox reverted my edits not a revision. I have listened to all your comments and asked you for help when it was needed. I also changed my attitude after learning that you were to reason when I was initially very frustrated. You can see that from our discussion.
Using multipe IPS to edits is not a valid reason to block me. Once my main unblock occurred and confession to all the mistakes, I never used multiple accounts or tried to hide my self. The only time that may have had multiple IP's is when I forgot to log-in. I don't understand how this is a violation?
Lastly, I apologized to that user for personal attacks that I made multiple times. I told him that I believe he has a conflict of interest and cannot be partial in a discussion. I can remove anything that is deemed a personal attack. I feel that a month is a long time to be blocked and I have improved my editing by recently helping cleaning many articles and adding valid points to the discussions. Please consider allowing me to improving my abilities to discuss topics and continue to be a positive user on this resource.
Firstly, in regard to the edit warring, it seems you have been edit warring to some extent. Secondly, using multiple IPs to edit can be grounds to block someone, and I'd suggest taking greater care to only edit logged in from now on. Thirdly, by your own admission you have made personal attacks. Overall, I'm declining this request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2015 (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.
Okay no problem Bbb23. A day or two off will help things cool down. I also wanted to apologize to User:Anthony Bradbury. He was the admin that gave me a true second chance and I don't want to let him down. I have not socked in any way, edited only using valid sources and apologized for personal attacks. I know this is not a permanent block and I hope that it never comes to that again but the length affects the ability to continue to the talk page discussions and work on other articles.
I see in the interim that Phil declined your unblock request, but I promised you a response. You need to look at this from a different perspective. You're not an ordinary editor. You're a user who was indefinitely blocked for socking on a relatively large scale, and that included using IPs to edit. You were given a second chance, but there's only so much WP:ROPE given to an editor with your history. For you to say that you forgot to log in when editing more recently with multiple IPs is not an acceptable explanation. First, every time an IP edits an article, they are warned that their IP address may be disclosed by editing. I'm sure you are familiar with that, so at that point you should stop and log in, but you didn't. Second, it wasn't just one time with one IP address. It was multiple times with multiple addresses.
With respect to the edit warring, you knew very well that editing the article while the current dispute was still ongoing was not permissible, but you did it anyway, and to wikilawyer your way out of it by saying it wasn't exactly the same as the other material, etc., doesn't justify it.
Finally, as for the personal attacks, this is not a new issue. Your accusing others of bias because they don't agree with you has been commented on before, by me and by other users. Persisting in that conduct constitutes personal attacks, even if it's followed by an apology because the apology rings hollow when it's repetitive conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome
Welcome to my talk page. Please be respectful. Have had issues in the past and now I am unblocked. My expertise and general interest is with controversial topics within Hinduism.
Swamiblue (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Akshardham
You undid 3 of my edits and termed it as vandalism. Do you know the exact meaning of vandalism or you are obliged not to explain the reason behind the reverts?
Reference errors on 11 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please take the time to consider that Wikipedia policy does not consider content disputes, such as at Akshardham (Delhi), to be WP:VANDALISM; and that unwarranted accusations of vandalism in edit summaries constitute personal attacks, and must be avoided. You've been doing this often, for quite a while, and it really must stop; the next time you refer to a good faith editor as a vandal, you'll likely find yourself blocked. --jpgordon::==( o )14:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. Some times I quickly revert content removal without valid reason and call it vandalism because of the nature of the topic but I will make sure that I am more aware. I would like to have your input on the disputed content if you have time. Thanks User:Jpgordon, Swamiblue (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC); edited to clarify author Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome Back to Wiki Swamiblue! You may want to check out WP:Request for comment on how to properly file an RfC, as well as instructions on creating a proper RfC that sends out a message to multiple editors who may not be involved on the article to put in their two cents on the question asked. I am posting this since you do not seem to have put in the Template:Rfc which would inform other editors and open a proper RfC. Dr Crazy 102 (talk)
Reference errors on 19 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swaminarayan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sentimentalism. 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.
I said misguided because I wasn't sure if the user even read the mountain of discussion on the talk page. There has been several new users that have been reverting that particular topic and it has been vandalism so I don't think that it was necessary to block me. What is it when someone just deletes everything without reason? Swamiblue (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I need to stop calling content dispute vandalism. Got it. I will take the next few days off and re read some polices. I think stating something like "Restoring mass deletion of sourced material, I don't see a consensus on the talk page to remove this" would have been more appropriate. The other user is state copyright issues but I am not clear if when we are suppose to use direct sentences. I find myself conflicted because when I write another way, someone tells me that the no where in the source does it say that because I summarized. Thanks for your reply.Swamiblue (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions alert for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Discretionary sanctions alert for biographies of living people
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
You keep apologising for people perceiving personal attacks, and yet you have not changed your style of writing. Please read the WP page and act accordingly in future; ie, comment on content, not editors. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition to Swaminarayan has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The content is copied from this link and other sources cited in the addition. Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
April 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Kapil.xerox (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive Editing
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. 01:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs)
