User talk:KathiWarriorDarbar

October 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Kathi people have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Kathi people was changed by KathiWarriorDarbar (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.925391 on 2024-10-16T13:53:22+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Kathi people, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kathi people, 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. - Arjayay (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is certainly a bias and derogatory . All the facts are incorrect. The book which was used a reference is not a main reference book. I come from the same family and the article is baseless.

I have received many complaints from our community

Kindly help us to remove and rewrite. KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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 noticeboards.
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, as you did at Kathi people, you may be blocked from editing. Frost 15:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Kathi people. Frost 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi Frost,

The editor has just written hateful contents against my community and women.

You can see, the guy is deliberately providing wrong content KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frost. Kindly help me to unblock KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 16:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi Frost,

The editor has just written hateful contents against my community and women.

You can see, the guy is deliberately writing wrong contents KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly help.

Chariotrider555 user has deliberately edited the page yesterday

Many authors have written a number of books about history of Kathi people

He has slected the most hateful content and edited in the main article

Kindly help KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have created the account yesterday only. I was not aware of the editing guidelines. ::: I have seen most derogatory content about my community and specifically about the women. There are many books have been written about our history. The editor (chariotrider555 and others ) has only selected specific parts of the book to deliberately target our community. I have tried to correct it but didn't know about the rules and guidelines. I have used a talk button to communicate with the Chariotrider555 but there was no reply. He deliberately added 2 more lines yesterday about our community and women. Kindly help to remove hateful content. I will be careful while editing. I never threatened legal action or anything. I was just giving an example of book writers publishing public apologies after realising their mistakes. Many of my community members strongly believe that the ' Kathi Peaople' page contents are extremely derogatory and some parts of the content should be removed (for example - yesterday the Chariotrider555 has added hateful content. This was my first time so I didn't know much about what to write and how to do the changes. I will be cautious and will contact the expert or admin for clarification thanks for your help. Any legal actions I have initiated related to Wikipedia are concluded. I will not pursue legal action in this matter ::: KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Despite agreeing to a topic ban, you state below, "I will use the valid source to edit the Kathi People page". I'm sorry, but we've gone over and over and over this. Either you are agreeing to a topic ban, in which case you won't be editing that page, or you aren't agreeing to a topic ban. You can't have it both ways. Frankly, I think I've wasted my time here and so I'm declining your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2024 (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.

You have two simultaneous open unblock requests. We'll only review one. Please remove whichever one you do not want reviewed. Note also that you made a clear legal threat and will need to directly address that. I suggest by withdrawing your legal threat with prejudice, meaning you commit to never using legal action on this matter. I also suggest you offer to abide by a WP:TOPICBAN around castes, but it's up to you. DO NOT make a third simultaneous unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamla,

Thank you so much for your reply.

How can i remove the unblock request and edit the other one?

Thanks KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit this page using the Edit link at the top of the page, assuming you are using a desktop browser. As I don't use Wikipedia from a mobile device, I'm unable to tell you how to do so in that case. --Yamla (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to do as Yamla asks above, and withdraw your threat of legal action with prejudice, committing to use Wikipedia processes to address your grievances instead of the courts of your country. We cannot stop you from using the courts according to the laws of your country if you so choose, but if you wish to do so, or even leave yourself that option, you will not be unblocked until you indicate that any and all legal actions you have initiated related to Wikipedia are concluded, or you commit to doing as you've been asked. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned it. Kindly unblock me. Thanks KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where you withdrew your threat of legal action. You mention above that you didn't think you made one, but you said "We have successfully challenged many book publishers through the high court and they have made public apology and removed the articles from their books"; it is difficult to see this as anything other than a threat of legal action- maybe you don't specifically threaten it, but by making that statment you were using the possibility of legal action as a cudgel to obtain the result you want. That is unacceptable. You will need to clearly and with prejudice state that you will not pursue legal action in this matter. As I said, if you wish to, or you even just wish to have the possibility to do so, you will not be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned it clearly. Thanks for your help KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark Yamla Is this sufficient? 331dot (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not unblock you without a voluntary WP:TOPICBAN around castes, broadly construed. So, if you want me to review your unblock request, that's how it's going to go. You are welcome to have another person review it, though. --Yamla (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about that. I concur with Yamla, though I too would not stand in anyone's way. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yamla. I'd like to see constructive editing outside the caste domain if they're going to be a meaningful contributor. RegentsPark (comment) 17:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamla, RegentsPark,331dot

Kindly clarify further about the Caste domain as i am not sure what it is and what i need to do?

Also i need your opinion about the editing particular article. (i.e. you can clearly see Chariotrider555 keep adding selective lines (on 16th and 17th Oct ) to the 'Kathi People' page using only one source. KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We want you to agree to a topic ban with regards to castes, broadly construed. This means that if the edit has anything at all to do with a caste or the caste system, no matter how small a connection, you can't make it. This would include editing about the Kathi people. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that as I strongly believe in equality. I just want to ask why Chariotrider555 is allowed to edit 'Kathi Peapole' page which is totally wrong,unacceptable and bias towards kathi people KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other people's actions aren't your concern, and you should only be discussing your actions while seeking an unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

kindly help to resolve. I am new here and made few mistakes within a few minutes.

I am sure many people do that.

i am a writer myself and would like to write and contribute much about my favourite topics

Already written So much

Quick help will be appreciated KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi Yamla, my edit link is not working and no one is replying to my another unblock request.

Have i done it correctly ?

Kindly help KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your unblock request. You now need to wait your turn. As you did not offer to abide by a topic ban, you should expect your unblock request to be declined. Frankly, I think you have almost exhausted the community's patience even with a topic ban, there's basically zero chance you'll be unblocked without one. You've been massively disruptive here on your talk page, too. --Yamla (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here. Don't know with whom to discuss/talk KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't find your agreement very convincing as you say you agree and then persist in arguing over another user. If another user is disruptive, that will eventually be addressed(though I would advise you to read WP:TRUTH). A topic ban will mean that you will need to completely abandon efforts to contribute about the Kathi people, including criticizing other editors who do so. If you don't want to give that up, okay, but it's unlikely you will be unblocked without doing so. We don't want you to agree to a topic ban because of equality, we want you to because you have demonstrated you cannot edit about that topic without being disruptive. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply.

I will not be disruptive as it was my first editing experience. I did not know that i am not allow to change the content without taking with the editor.

I am learning day by day as I am completely new to this

I will use the valid source to edit the Kathi People page

Kindly help KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you agree to a topic ban, you will not contribute about the Kathi people at all(or anything to do with castes). If you don't wish to do that, you shouldn't agree to a topic ban, but then it is unlikely you will be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your time and effort

I made a mistake in editing as it was my first day. I had no clue what i was doing. It was a genuine mistake.

Why I will be not allow to edit That particular page?

you can clearly see the wrong information has been posted on that page by unknown editor who is bias towards our community. I will contact the editor and will explain the truth through the talk page.

I am still struggling to understand

I am a writer and i have written many articles about the kathi people.

I am sure, we can find the better solution KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't deal in truth, as truth is in the eye of the beholder. It's up to readers to decide what is true to them. We deal in what can be verified, again, see WP:TRUTH. This is not the place to be a truth warrior or to right great wrongs. You are free to make a new unblock request to try to convince another administrator you should be unblocked without a topic ban, though that's unlikely. Again, you have demonstrated you cannot edit about that topic without being disruptive. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already mentioned about not creating any disruption.

Why you are applying topic ban when it's my favourite subject and know so much about it KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to know in detail, Why i was blocked. I did write reasons as well when i made changes KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KathiWarriorDarbar, You were blocked for making legal threats in this post where you referred to a history of taking legal action that resulted in monetary costs on the defendants. This statement can be construed as threatening an editor ("you could be next" sort of thing) and that's not permissible on Wikipedia. Since, you've withdrawn that threat that's no longer an issue. The issue now is that, based on your actions before you were blocked, your comments here, and, perhaps, your choice of username, you appear to have only one purpose on Wikipedia - correcting what you think is not correct about the Kathi people article. Single purpose accounts (see WP:SPA) are frowned upon on Wikipedia particularly when they add information without citing sources or remove sourced content as you were doing. What we're asking you to do is to edit in areas that are not related to social groups in India for a bit, demonstrate that you have the hang of using sources appropriately and editing responsibly, and then return to the area of your main interest. RegentsPark (comment) 19:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to unblock KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that Wikipedia content is not based on personal knowledge. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Thank you for the brief answer.

kindly help me to unblock KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.. I am not sure what changes you are making.

Possible sock/meat by User talk:Rudrapratapsinh Dhadhal. 331dot (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by sock/meat.

Kindly let me know

Please help me to unblock KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to make a new unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAB explains how to do so. However, to the next reviewing admin, I strongly suggest revoking talk page access. This is a clear case of WP:IDHT. --Yamla (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree about WP:IDHT

I have written and done everything i have asked about

this is a clear case of violation of my free speech and freedom

You are trying to impose unnecessary restrictions just because I made few silly mistkes on my first day within a few minutes as i was not aware about the what are pros and cons.

I have already put everything in writing. I am sure, there is a simple and straightforward way to resolve the issue.

Kindly help and resolve the matter. I will appreciate it

To all the administrator : Please help. I am tired of this manipulative arguments and unnecessary restrictions KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have no freedom of speech here. See WP:FREESPEECH. If you want your block to be reviewed, you must make an unblock request. WP:GAB explains how to do so. --Yamla (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the another request.

Please check if i have done it correctly? Thanks KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have made some changes to my unblock request yesterday. I am not sure what you have done. Kindly help me to unblock. Thanks KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not fair. You are trying to associate me with completely unknown person. You left a comment at the bottom of my unblock request.

Please help me to resolve the issue.

I have realised my mistakes and I would never do such things

Will appreciate your help or let me know how to resolve it KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient. Your request is open and visible. There are a limited number of volunteer administrators. Posting here every so often won't speed a review. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock/meat by User talk:Rudrapratapsinh Dhadhal. 331dot (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21 October 2024 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).

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

Request reason:

I have created the account yesterday only. I was not aware of the editing guidelines. ::: I have seen most derogatory content about my community and specifically about the women. There are many books have been written about our history. The editor (chariotrider555 and others ) has only selected specific parts of the book to deliberately target our community. I have tried to correct it but didn't know about the rules and guidelines. I have used a talk button to communicate with the Chariotrider555 but there was no reply. He deliberately added 2 more lines yesterday about our community and women. Kindly help to remove hateful content. I will be careful while editing. I never threatened legal action or anything. I was just giving an example of book writers publishing public apologies after realising their mistakes. Many of my community members strongly believe that the ' Kathi Peaople' page contents are extremely derogatory and some parts of the content should be removed (for example - yesterday the Chariotrider555 has added hateful content. This was my first time so I didn't know much about what to write and how to do the changes. I will be cautious and will contact the expert or admin for clarification thanks for your help. Any legal actions I have initiated related to Wikipedia are concluded. I will not pursue legal action in this matter. I realised my mistakes as I had no clue about how to edit the articles. Block is to harsh. Kindly help please KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 9:11 am, 21 October 2024, Monday (9 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. I'll also note that as South Asian topics (WP:ARBIPA) are generally considered contentious topics, editors are expected to be familiar with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and norms before diving into the topic. Even if it were 100% accurate, polemics like the above are absolutely not how we go about improving coverage on Wikipedia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:50, 30 October 2024 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have accepted my mistakes which i did in 1 day ( made few changes in biased caste article ) without knowing the rules. I am not sure why I am still blocked. This is unfair. Kindly help. I am sure, there must be few admin sureley support my request. This was a genuine mistake. Will appreciate your helpKathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Could you say what topics you want to edit? PhilKnight (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2024 (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.

KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Please

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Dear all admins Kindly help me. I have been blocked over 2 months now for silly mistakes as i was trying to add the page without the valid source (it happened in first day of creating my username and i was not aware about editing or rules ) as i was not aware. I have repeatedly said that i will be extra careful and will ask for someone's help if i am not sure in the future. I have never made any legal threat or do not have any intention to do the same in the future. I will be very thankful. Please please help

Accept reason:

The logged reason for this block is legal threats, and it is clearly open to interpretation whether one was made here. I do notthink it was intended as one, and the blocking admin appears to be on a break, so I'm not inclined to just leave this open forever.Other issues have been bvrought up below regarding your editing, and you should heed that advice and rememebr that Wikipedia is not the place to push your preferred point-of-view but as content edits are not a logged reason for the block, that's not a reason to maintain it. I'm also very disappointed with the expremely lame attempt to say your username is part of the problem. Ignore that, but heed the other advice. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a reasonable connection between their username and their activities. If that's "lame", guilty, I guess. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Beeblerino and all the admins for your valuable inputs KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you say that you withdraw any legal threats? And could you say what topics you want to edit? PhilKnight (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really fair to demand a user explain exactly what edits they would make when the only logged reason for the block is legal threats. I'm actually struggling to see how that is justified. I assume it is to do with this, which does not look to my eye like a direct threat to take legal action against a WP user. I would therefore suggest that an unblock is in order unless @RegentsPark: was talking about something else that I'm not seeing. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 19:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I in general agree that merely agreeing to withdraw legal threats is sufficient to clear a NLT block, I think the edits on this page show we'll quickly be back here if this editor, who seems to be a truth warrior, resumes contributing in the same topic area(a CTOP) I don't want to see that, for us or them, hence the requests to know what they want to edit and for a topic ban. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But...that's not the reason for the block, and I don't really think the reason for the block is particularly solid as I am not seeing a clear "I intent to take legal action" but rather a description of past legal actions, that does not contain a threat. The block seems unjustified on its face, retroactively adding more reasons for it even more so. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That mention of legal actions is meant to have a chilling effect; it was a cudgel to obtain a desired result, which is little better than directly threatening legal action. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If RegentsPark is okay here, I am too, but it's not just me that's skeptical here, and trying to avoid future disruption. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to get desired results. I never threatened anyone and I will never do that

I will certainly use the editing templates and will provide the necessary sources and also get the experts/ admin advice before I edit as I was not aware about the rules As it was my first day.

I strongly feel that this is a harsh decision and it's against the wikipedias principles

Kindly help and resolve the issue

Many thanks KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that you didn't say "I'm going to sue" or otherwise directly threaten legal action. But when you say what you said here you're basically saying "I've successfully sued people for doing what's being done here and made them pay lots of legal fees in forcing them to do what I wanted them to. It'd be a shame if that happened here" and as such other people are going to be afraid of interacting with you out of fear you will sue them. That's called a chilling effect.

There is a reason that social groups in South Asia is a formally designated contentious topic, and you're showing why. You even have "warrior" in your username. I and others do not think it is a good idea to unblock you to edit about South Asian social groups. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because of my username is Warrior...it does not mean i am on war with anyone.

You are keep targeting my name.. that is not fair

I have vast knowledge of South Asian history including art, archology and i would like to give my input on these. KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the page i try to edit is ' Kathi Darbar'

Also, the information in that page is 100% wrong.

Indian society is still highly devided based on caste and religion.

This page is hijack by few editor and the content is 100% bias

( example : all the edit done by Chariotrider555 is highly bias and inaccurate.

"The Kāṭhīs of Rajkot eat the meat of goats, sheep, fowl, and a few other domesticated animals, a trait which is also shared with the local Kolis."

The above example is inaccurate in every sense. 100% kathi women and above 90% men are vegetarian in our community.

I am not here to gloryfy our community but i can see that they are picking the worst derogatory lines from various books and putting it together. You can clearly see from his edits.

This is a genuine request from me and behalf of our community

Kindly help

Thanks a lot KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a good idea to use your talk page to WP:ABF and WP:ASPERSIONS. Communicating in this manner is precisely why 331dot is extremely concerned about unblocking you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs

Thanks for the suggestion.

Appreciate your help.

I am not able to send personal messages via talk page.

I was just giving an example.

It's been over a 2 months now l and for no reason, I have e been blocked

Kindly help KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were not blocked for no reason. What you posted can very literally be taken as a legal threat, whether explicit or implied. You could also very easily have been blocked for making accusations against Chariotrider555 with no evidence or edit warring for removing sourced information based on your assertions rather than ones supported by sourced evidence. Edit summaries like "hateful content" should never be used based on a content disagreement. A different percentage of vegetarians in a group than you believe is true is not remotely in the same category as blatant vandalism. I am very concerned that you do not appear to understand what is wrong with making charges like these.

If you'd like to convince a skeptical administrator to unblock you, I think you would be wise to consider how you collaborate with others, and present how you would constructively resolve disagreements. Let's use the example above: what is your reliable sourcing for 100% of Kathi women and more than 90% of Kathi men being vegetarian? And how are Chariotrider's sources used flawed?

Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that you have an ironclad source for your belief and find a notable flaw in Chariotrider's source. You make the change and they revert the change. What specific steps do you take after this to resolve the disagreement? Knowing how to address this last question is absolutely crucial to contributing to this project.

Please note that I am not an administrator, so I cannot unblock you. However, I'm 100% positive that administrators would look more kindly on your request if you're able to address these types of issues constructively. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the brief explanation.

I agree with your suggestions and i will follow the required guidelines

without disrespecting other opinions.

I will update my editing skills with valid sources before I edit any topics.

As i mentioned earlier, i will certainly take experts advice if i require further guidance on anything here.

Again, I do not have any personal issues with any editors. I respect all the contributors including admins

Many thanks KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I was offline (lots of driving) for the last few days. I see that Beeblebrox has unblocked the editor so I guess any comment is moot but here it is anyway. Though I'm not hopeful (c.f., [1],[2]), I get the position that the threat is withdrawn and since that's the sole stated basis for the block we should unblock the editor. Kathiwarriordarbar, please take the time to read our policies on verification and neutral point of view to get a sense for what constitutes appropriate citations and what the meaning of NPOV is. Good luck with your edits. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions.

@Beeblebrox

@CoffeeCrumbs

@RegentsPark

I need further clarification that if you find the content of the article is wrong and bias and edited by someone whos intention is not balanced. What step should i take? Also, is there any complaints procedure?. I read the guidelines and it says that you can raise the issue on your talk page hence writing here.

Thanks KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should raise the issue on the article talk page, not here. If the sources provided are not accurately summarized, please detail the errors. If the sources are accurately summarized, but in error, you'll need to speak to the sources, not us- or provided more current sources with more accurate information. These sources cannot be your own views- they must be published in a reliable source that can be verified. For example, what is the source of your claim that 100% of Kathi women and 90% of men are vegetarians?

You will need clear evidence for claims about an editor's motivations. If it's off wiki evidence, you can't post it here(see WP:OUTING). Bias does not prevent someone from participating here. My advice is that you not focus on the motivations of others at all, and focus on the content. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all excellent advice and I have nothing to add. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 02:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks a lot KathiWarriorDarbar (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]