User talk:EruTheLord

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it!

I am very close to asking an admin to block you for edit warring across a multitude of articles. Examples: Velalar, Devendra kulam, Kudumbar, Devaneya Pavanar, and Thenkalam. In some cases, this seems to have been going on for days, and it is continuing despite the past discussions on this talk page which you have now blanked. It has to stop. You already know from the protection applied at Devendra Kulathan by El C that these things should be discussed, not warred over. I am tempted to revert all articles to the state they were in prior to both the edits of yourself and Mamallarnarashimavarman. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is liking velalar to DKV instead of vellalar. Adding caste name to deveneya pavanar without citation. And similarly for kudumbar adding info at will without citing.

Since you have asked I will stop editing relating to these topics and others relating to this, but you should ensure he doesn't do unverified info addition at will or reverts at will. EruTheLord (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I revert all articles to the state before either of you were editing them (and that could be months back in the case of Mamallarnarashimavarman), the pair of you can discuss properly. I'll think about it. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He changed all the pages which originally mentioned Pallars to Devendra kula vellalar, that's why I suspected him pushing his POV. If u go back before his edits you can realise the fact. But after checking so many pages it was very tedious to determine if he changed Pallar to DKV because it seems he went all beyond the way to make sure Pallar is changed to DKV. If U revert all other contribution by other users will be undone. Let's wait and see if he again starts edit warring again and then you can decide to revert or not. If he is not POV pushing I don't see any problem as of now. EruTheLord (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of multiple accounts

Per your request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EruTheLord, I have blocked all of your accounts other than this one but have not blocked this one. Let me be perfectly clear here: you need to familiarize yourself with our policies on the use of multiple accounts and should not create more accounts. If you're found to be using multiple accounts again, administrators probably will not be so lenient. GeneralNotability (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing spree

I am becoming a bit concerned with your latest editing spree. For example, Susan Bayly is most definitely reliable, so no idea why you did this. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was lot of complaints about that book of poor research EruTheLord (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also you have changed some edits for example thief to king, i did not change it myself i just reverted an unexplained edit.EruTheLord (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know about the usual vandalism regarding thief and will fix that but you are making terrible edits. Another I have just reverted is this one. The paper does not even mention the Rajus as far as I can see, so you cannot presume that they are neither Brahmin nor Dalit based on that. If you think Bayly is incorrect for the point made, you will have to find another source to counter her opinion because a present-day Cambridge University academic is not "unreliable".

Honestly, I'm starting to become very concerned. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages are using inspite of the particular caste not being mentioned there. Why should this now be a cause of worry? EruTheLord (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EruTheLord, please use colons to indent properly in conversations. You need to edit much more cautiously, otherwise the admins (like me) will start to regret letting you continue despite the sockpuppetry. What do you mean, for instance, by saying "There was lot of complaints" about Susan Baily's book? Complaints from who? Might it be from caste members who didn't like her conclusions? You need to be more professional in judging something to be "poor research", and be prepared to back up your opinion with reliable sources — just waving away questions with ""There was lot of complaints" doesn't cut it, far from it. Read our article Susan Bayly — no suggestion there of her research being criticised. Bishonen | tålk 10:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Partial block from Devendra Kulathan

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 12:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been topic banned indefinitely from all caste-related pages, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for long-term disruption of caste-related pages. I'm sorry, but you are a net negative when it comes to these pages, especially in the context of your constant edit warring with your counterpart.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. El_C 04:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you mean by me being net negative? What am I supposed to do if mamallanarashimavarman repeatedly tries to add blatant copy paste content? EruTheLord (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They won't be able to, since they have been topic banned from that topic area exactly the same as you. El_C 04:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thats not an issue. What about that net negative stuff? EruTheLord (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It means you've been causing more problems than were providing solutions in your perennial dispute with Mamallarnarashimavarman. El_C 04:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And not just that. Eg: User_talk:EruTheLord#Editing_spree above and your massive deletions of stuff that either is sourced or could very easily be sourced. - Sitush (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are breaches of your topic ban. El C? - Sitush (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block

To enforce an arbitration decision and due to a topic ban violation, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

El_C 07:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 16:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New account created by this user

hi everybody this user is created new account https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Biblegunk he is doing same as repeated changes in Madurai Nayak dynasty please once find it Jeevan naidu (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]