User talk:Sandesh9822

Welcome!

Hello, संदेश हिवाळे, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —SpacemanSpiff 07:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to B. R. Ambedkar. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at BR Ambedkar.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. JimRenge (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JimRenge. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Statue of Equality, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Religion in South Korea, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Meters (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Religion in Mongolia. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop replacing reliably sourced data with unsourced or poorly sourced information. The religion statistics include the people with no religion. You cannot simply quote the percentage of the religious people who are a particular religion. Meters (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at List of Marathi people. Meters (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello संदेश हिवाळे, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Religion in China has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — JimRenge (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or improperly cited material to Wikipedia, as you did at Religion in Laos. [1] does not appear to be a reliable source, it cites wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR). [2] appears to be a dead link. Please stop inflating the number of Buddhists in country X based upon non reliable sources. Please see WP:NOT, WP:BURDEN, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV for more information. JimRenge (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 09:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any further such edits like you're doing -- adding your POV of Ambedkar/ Buddhism etc and/or any other form of disruption will result in you being blocked indefinitely. —SpacemanSpiff 09:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at B. R. Ambedkar, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Mahar, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. We don't use honorifics and titles in article body. utcursch | talk 18:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JimRenge. An edit that you recently made to Spring Temple Buddha seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! JimRenge (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for long term Disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 01:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 12:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Vaman Tabaji Kardak

The article Vaman Tabaji Kardak has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Laurdecl ^talk 09:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

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).

Sandesh9822 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

No reason given to consider lifting this block. Yamla (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2017 (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.

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).

Sandesh9822 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

give me a final chance as I shameful for the vandalism of Wikipedia rules. I am sorry the inconvenience caused please unblock me संदेश हिवाळे (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances, a standard offer approach could be taken in this case. PhilKnight (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2017 (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.

Your blanking of my unblock decline shows you still don't understand Wikipedia's policies. This makes it hard to believe you'd edit appropriately if unblocked. Do so again and I will revoke your talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

Sandesh9822 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I admit that I had done disruptive editing on english Wikipedia but now I have taken sufficient experience in a year in knowing what all contents are acceptable on Wikipedia. I have read all the related policies and guidelines I have completed more than 21,000 global edits and believe I can really be able to move on and enrich the contents of Wikipedia. Please assume good faith in me as I believe not to give even a chance to continue my old crap! संदेश हिवाळे (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After consulting with the blocking admin, and considering the comments at User talk:SpacemanSpiff#User talk:संदेश_हिवाळे and those below, I do not feel I can unblock unconditionally at this point. If you wish to make a further unblock request, can I suggest a couple of things? Firstly, I think a detailed explanation of your past problems and a detailed forward plan for avoiding any repeats would be of benefit. Secondly, you might want to consider a voluntary topic ban along the lines suggested below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2018 (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.

Non-admin comment: I'm not commenting on the block or your activities over the past years, but you do understand that if you EVER return to doing anything like what got you blocked, you will be reblocked immediately and indefinitely, with no second chance, right? Please think long and hard and give a very good reason why you should be unblocked, besides "give me one more chance", and tell us what you plan to do if you are unblocked. Zyc1174 _chat? ^{what I did} 17:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zyc1174: thank you for your comment above. Whereas my future plans on English Wikipedia is to improve articles related to Buddhism as well as Marathi notable people. While language should not be a barrier for contributing wikipedia I have written many articles on Marathi Wikipedia which dosent exist on English. While I am a native of Marathi langauge I have many reliable sources to add to support articles in English Wikipedia. I would like to enhance the quality of articles and add more articles regarding films and notable people of Marathi society.संदेश हिवाळे (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment: I would support the unblock of Sandesh Hiwale as it has drastically changed its way of editing in last few months. While was editing Marathi Wikipedia Sandesh has become extreme familiar with the notablility guidelines and avoiding conficts of interest. I am sure that it will contribute good and avoid it's former mistakes. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiven2240: Uh, thanks for participating. संदेश हिवाळे|संदेश हिवाळे, if command of English is an issue related to unblocking, you should both copy edit your posts. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: command of English? I didn't get you btw I am native speaker of indian English and it's not reason for unblocking. I truly assume good faith in the editor and I believe in right of every human being to have access to Wikipedia. Yeah I know that this user may have issues about the grammar of English but it's not an big issue. The user has improved a lot and I believe it must get a second chance. As we all are here to build an encyclopedia we have to assume good faith in editor. I hope administrators of English Wikipedia will work as per WP:CONDUNBLOCK and WP:DSAN in this matter. I hope for a good and fair response from the English Wikipedia administrators as I believe Sandesh has improved a lot and can go great in future. Thanking you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 02:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you and they aware that the guidelines may not be the same here as at Marathi Wikipedia? For example, you have committed a fair few violations of WP:BLP here in putting people in Category:Ambedkarites. - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there violation of WP:BLPCAT? I don't this that this is something against! Here we are to discuss about the block not the edits don't go off the topic. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 11:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely asking whether you and they are aware that Marathi Wikipedia guidelines may differ from English Wikipedia guidelines. - Sitush (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously yes I do I am not a new editor to wikimedia projects that I won't know them. Hope we end up out of scope discussion and discuss about the block here. If you want such to be discussed feel free to notify me about my shortcomings on my talkpage I'll be very happy to hear it from you there. Thanking you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 12:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And do they know, not just you? There has been talk of what they have been doing at the Marathi Wikipedia as evidence of behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I don't have much trust over Tiven's words, given their own editing activities.I will also note that notability and sourcing requirement for all-most all Indian-language-wikis are miles lower than en-wiki.Thus, I will be amenable to an unblock per SO; but with a T-Ban from Religions and B. R. Ambedkar, broadly construed, which may be appealed after a definite time-span, pending proper editing in other spheres.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Winged Blades of Godric´s commment and proposal: T-Ban from Religions and B. R. Ambedkar (6 months?). JimRenge (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: I agree with Topic ban from B. R. Ambedkar and associated articles. I promise not to repeat my old mistake again.संदेश हिवाळे (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That should work, although I'd rather it included Dalit-related material generally but I would stress that the policies and guidelines here are almost certainly different from those at the Marathi version of this project and almost certainly tougher, so you may need to familiarise yourself with them. Perhaps make small edits at first while you get up to speed (I'm not suggesting small edits as part of the unblock conditions - it is just a thought for your own sake.) - Sitush (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: thank you for your advice I'll work on it. संदेश हिवाळे (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: and @Boing! said Zebedee: I agree to the conditions above. संदेश हिवाळे (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I have unblocked you per your acceptance of the unblock conditions. Just to reiterate:

You are topic banned from anything related to B. R. Ambedkar and Dalit topics across all namespaces of the English Wikipedia.
You can appeal this directly to either me or Boing! said Zebedee after six months of non-problematic editing in other areas. If both of us aren't available, then you can appeal at WP:AN
In the interim, if you have are in doubt about whether something falls under the topic ban or not, you can ask either of us.
For other assistance, especially since you edit around India related topics, you can post questions etc at WT:INB, for more general questions you can ask at WP:HELPDESK or WP:TEAHOUSE.

I will leave a welcome message at the top of this page, please read through the links to get a better understanding of policies and guidelines. Happy editing! —SpacemanSpiff 07:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from me too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee and SpacemanSpiff: Here are multiple violations of topic ban [3][4][5][6][7] from today. It also seems that his edits on other subjects are failing WP:VERIFY.[8] Capitals00 (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I'm disappointed to see such a blatant breach of your topic ban, as clearly presented above, and I have imposed an indefinite block. Your betrayal of my trust (and that of others) is disappointing, and I will assist you no further. Feel free to appeal in the usual way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add again category

@Frietjes:

Please add again {{User Ambedkarism}} in my user page. your edit. संदेश हिवाळे (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hindustanilanguage:

Please add {{User Ambedkarism}} in my user page. संदेश हिवाळे (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

संदेश हिवाळे

This user was renamed from संदेश हिवाळे. From what I gather, there are discussions on going about this users conduct, particularly, HI wiki..-- Deep fried okra 15:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/संदेश हिवाळे.-- Deep fried okra 22:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: FYI-- Deep fried okra 22:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]