User talk:Aksevin7

Welcome!

Hello, Aksevin7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Grewal. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Sitush (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am afraid that I have just had to revert your recent edit to the Grewal article. I am sure that you meant well but of late there has been a concerted effort from various newly-registered accounts to include that information. Among the problems is that the writings of B. S. Dhillon have been deemed to be unreliable sources. I suggest that you discuss the matter at Talk:Grewal before reinstating that material, and you might also benefit from reading WP:MEAT (just click on the blue links I have given you). Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sitush (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are the one who should be blocked. You should not delete a whole article, but make meaningful contributions to it. I don't know what personal agenda you have going, or who you are funded by. The edits made were clearly sourced used historical accounts and historian analysis. Please only contribute to topics you have some basic understanding of.Aksevin7 (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal agenda but that you removed my earlier warning here is perhaps notable. You really need to get a grip of what is and is not a reliable source and you probably need to read WP:SOCK because there are stylistic reasons for believing that you have been editing under other accounts. A read of WP:NPOV wouldn't go amiss either: we do not exist to glorify your caste. - Sitush (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accounts and historian interpretations are the primary basis of how history is interpreted. You cannot alter a page based upon your personal beliefs. If there is a particular part of the article you have issues with, please post it in the talk section, rather than reverting the entire article. Before making contributions, perhaps you should educate yourself on how history is interpreted. Please don't accuse me of such behavior, I am perfectly aware of the policies of this site.Aksevin7 (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article had no such caste related statements. It was based on published historical accounts and historian interpretations. If there is a part of the article you disagree with please point it out, but I dont see how you can remove the whole article based on this. Please clarify your stance. Aksevin7 (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the article talk page and the related deletion discussion that is mentioned there. All will become clear from that. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you lack the education to understand historical manuscripts, please do not make contributions to such topics. If there is a part of the article your disagree with or does not comply with guidelines, you may point that out, it does not mean you go and delete the entire article. I don't even think you read the article. If the nature of the article is above your ability to comprehend, please do not contribute. You will be doing a favor to us all.Aksevin7 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]