User talk:Banasura

Please don't accuse editors of making suspicious edits

See assume good faith. Thanks. Note that you only have 12 edits, D4iNa4 has about 1600, and I, well I have over 181,500. I don't expect you to understand what we expect from sources but I do hope that you will listen to more experienced editors. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than I thought. You called him a sockpuppet in an edit summary. That is something you should never do without raising a sockpuppet investigation at WP:SPI. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Dont lie. I did not call anybody a sockpuppet. I said the edit was sock-puppetry. When you remove a scholarly citation with out giving any reasons, it is a suspicious edit, alright. User:Banasura

Saying an edit is sockpuppetry is saying that it was made by a sockpuppet, that's what it means here. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying an edit is sockpuppetry is not saying that it was made by a sockpuppet. So by your logic if i say an apple is rotten, does it means the apple tree which created the apple is rotten? Strange logic there! Criticizing an action is not same as criticizing the person. User:Banasura

Misleading image name for File:Bhimbetka-lakha-juar-cave-painting-mesolithic.PNG

I asked that this be renamed to comply with the source, which clearly describes it as mesolithic/historical, ie the date is uncertain. Your description was also your own research, see no original research. However, it appears that it is a copyright violation and I expect that it will be deleted. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to rename the image, was turned down by moderators. So please correct your claims. Banasura talk

No, they didn't say that my claims was wrong, they said the request didn't meet the renaming guidelines. I'm trying to find out why. That doesn't change the fact that the source says mesolithic/historical and that the mesolithic extends into the first millennium BCE in Central India, specifically at the Bhimbetka rock shelters. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you're still reading this, files that are up for deletion don't get renamed. If, and its unlikely, the file is not deleted, it will be renamed per my request. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Your recent editing history at Bhimbetka rock shelters 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 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. Doug Weller talk 15:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war has been started by you and your fake profile User:D4iNa4 when you deleted scholarly opinion added by me with out specifying any reason. You should have posted this message on your profile itself. Aren't you the same person who got banned for 24 hours after being reported for your suspicious activities here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:FactChecked1_reported_by_User:Doug_Weller_(Result:_Blocked_24_hours Banasura (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)User:Banasura Banasura (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. By the way, no one has "profiles". Do you have a reading problem? Try reading that link again. And if I'm a sockpuppet, then I shouldn't be an Administrator and Arbitrator, you'd better report me to WP:ANI if you really believe that. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing

You have been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing and incompetence, shown for instance in saying "Saying an edit is sockpuppetry is not saying that it was made by a sockpuppet,"[1] and, to Doug Weller, "Who are you? aren't you the same spammer who got banned for 24 hours for your editing wars here?", with a reference to an edit warring report (posted by Doug Weller, who has been a Wikipedian for many years and never been blocked) that you were obviously unable or unwilling to read and understand, but happy to use for an accusation. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg, even though you have only made 35 edits to date. Incompetence together with willingness to learn can be accepted here, but incompetence together with aggression and defensiveness means you're a net negative for the project. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Stop

Please stop evading your block by editing from dynamic IPs. All that will happen is that the edits will be removed, as block evasion is not permitted, and neither you nor your arguments will get any respect. If you believe in your arguments, it would make more sense to appeal the block in the way I described above. Bishonen | talk 18:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

March 2018

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Doug Weller talk 14:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]