User talk:KhatriNYC3
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Khatri
[edit]Regarding your query in the second of this pair of edits ... because it was unsourced, as per my edit summary. I suggest that you self-revert your last edit until you find some reliable sources to support the statements. If you do not then I will. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Khatri. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi KhatriNYC3. Please do not edit war. It is useless. Edit warring can lead to yourself getting blocked or banned. Hordes of eds have been blocked on caste pages in the past few months. So, you have to be extra careful while editing caste articles. I would suggest that you show sources for whatever you want to include. Also please familiarize yourself with policies and guidelines like WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:TPG. If you want to achieve results on WP, it is necessary that you do not get yourself blocked or banned and that you acquire a close familiarity with the various policies and guidelines. Please familiarize yourself with the policies and try to improve the articles in keeping with WP policies only. Thanks.MW ℳ 17:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Stalking on a persistent basis, as MangoWong is doing with regard to me, is also a practice best not followed (if you will excuse the pun). - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- You are the one who is following me. Recent eg. [1]. I have had this user on my watchlist for some time. I wasn't saying anything about you. I see no problem talking to other users.MW ℳ 19:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
MANGO 1 - why am I on your "watchlist"? 2 - why are you following me? 3 - and most importantly.....do you like me? KhatriNYC3 (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you are on my watchlist because you are on caste pages, and I am concerned that too many users have been blocked or banned due to involvement on caste pages. I would have liked all of those users to become able and valuable contributors to the project. I want you too to become a valuable contributor to the project. To do that, you would have to avoid getting yourself blocked/ banned. You would also need to be mindful of the goals of the project and be familiar with the policies and guidelines. You can see I am encouraging you in that direction. I wasn't really "following" you. "Following" would be to keep tabs on your edits. I am not doing that. I only have your user page on my watchlist. You can have mine too. You can also look through my contributions if you want. MangoWong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Whatever I do is an open book and available for all to see. And I do like you. That is why I am encouraging you to hone your skills so that you may be able to achieve the results you want to achieve. I have a poor view of caste articles and I think that the way to improving them is to have more contributors on them. So, you see...MW ℳ 02:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. I would prefer it if you refer to me as "MangoWong" or "MW". Thanks.
3RR at Khatri
[edit]You have now exceeded WP:3RR at Khatri. You had problems when you operated your previous account but appear not to be learning. Please, please discuss the issues on the article talk page instead of warring. There have been plenty of explanations there, here and on my own talk page & so there are no excuses. Should I refer you to the 3RR noticeboard then you would certainly be blocked from editing and your past history, under the previous account, would mean that the block might be somewhat prolonged. There is no need for this. - Sitush (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Sitush - what have I done? You guys are clearly cleaning up the Khatri page to as you seem fit, which is totallllllly wrong! why are you hating on the Khatri community??? this wrong on your part and you know it.....
KhatriNYC3 (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- You can call them to book if they are doing something against the policies. If they are removing unsourced material, they are not doing anything wrong. If you want some time to put in proper citations, you can certainly request a reasonable period of time to do so.MW ℳ 03:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Some links for you
[edit]Links for Wikipedians interested in India content |
 |
|
|
Welcome kit
Register
Network
Contribute content
| ||
MW ℳ 04:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Khatri
[edit]Hi, I have not removed a single sentence with proper citation. Before making any potentially controversial edit, I've clearly explained my rationale on the article's talk page: I've removed sentences that failed verification (I actually checked the books cited in the article).
Although, I don't understand this obsession of Indian castes with "warrior" status, let me just point out that the intro still contains the "Kshatriya" bit. Besides, I have actually added content about the Khatris having administrative and military roles (see the Origin and history) with proper citations. I have also added citations for previously unsupported claims (e..g all the ten Sikh Gurus being Khatri). So, please assume good faith -- I am here to improve the article.
As for "providing time for citations", Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that any unsourced content can be challenged and removed. I did not remove every sentence tagged with {{citation needed}}, but only the ones that make extraordinary claims (like all the Mair/Sikh/Muslim Rajputs being Khatris). Such claims require strong reliable references with proper attribution, and cannot stay in the article on the premise that citations will be provided later. utcursch | talk 05:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Utcursch. I haven't looked much into the history of the article. I certainly believe that you are only trying to improve the article and I was only trying to explain that it is OK to remove uncited or dubious claims, even if they have a "cn" tag. I had suggesting "requesting" for time to provide citations. But in case of dubious claims, it is logical to deny the request. I would expect the request to be fulfilled if the material looks legit. Otherwise, unsourced or improperly sourced material can be deleted at will. In any case, one should insist on having the material in articlespace only if one has already provided valid cites and if the material complies other policies etc. Regards.MW ℳ 07:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
User Sitush removed information from the page that was cited and tagged with references. How do you explain that? He removed them without even challenging the information? There seems to be a lot of people who are of non-Khatri Punjabi origin trying to fabricate this article to as they seem fit, which is totally wrong!!
KhatriNYC3 (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- WP is an encyclopedia which anyone can edit. There is nothing wrong with "non-Khatri Punjabi origin" or whatever origin people edit any article. I would request that one may not worry about who is what etc. and focus on contributions rather that contributors. If someone is removing properly cited info without any reasonable explanation, it is for them to explain. If you think that someone is being unreasonable, you should try to discuss the issue on the article talk page. If the issue does not get resolved there, one should follow WP:DR. I too have a discussion going on at WP:DRN on a similar article. You can take a look there or other DR options if you feel that you need to take recourse to some form of DR. However, it is better to try to resolve the issue at the article talk page first.MW ℳ 16:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please see my response here. Also, if you're discussing the article, please comment on the article's talk page (rather than the user talk pages), so that other editors can also participate in the discussion. utcursch | talk 16:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
October 2011
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Khatri. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--¢ℓαяк (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Khatri. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
You have no evidence of any hatred and you have even included in your list some people who have indubitably tried to help you. Sitush (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Sitush, the fact of the matter remains, there are people here that are trying to change the Khatri page to how they seem fit. I don't understand these people's obsession with this page!!! I mean explain to me what is it?????? KhatriNYC3 (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Khatri, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
It is only recently that you were issued with a warning about edit warring at Khatri, and your recent comment on the talk page there is not helpful to your cause. The issues have been discussed and you have been made aware of what is required. Now, if you revert once more then you will definitely have crossed the line and any blocking admin will take account of your history under your previous username. Why not discuss things in a sensible manner? You are committing Wikipedia "suicide" here, which achieves nothing. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
why don't you and others discuss on the Disucssion board???? you and others started changing the page before even discussing your changes on the board first??? you let all these changes fly on this page without anyone discussing it first, while I try to put it back to its original state. You and I both know you and others are changing this page incorrectly, but defend yourselves by claiming you are "following" with guidelines. In my opinion, this is very wrong on your part and others.... KhatriNYC3 (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]Message added 23:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 23:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Lunar Dynasty...
[edit]You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Khatri. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Warring report
[edit]I have reported you to WP:3RRNB for edit warring. You were warned on far more occasions than was strictly necessary. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not doing anything wrong. I researched many of the citations on this page, and when I look in those books, people who have posted to the Khatri page have practiced "quote-mining" by taking what the author is saying and twisting his/her words. That is not true research, that is bogus and false information represented on this page. If you stand by those people, then you should be just as ashamed of yourself! KhatriNYC3 (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY (TALK) 04:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
KhatriNYC3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Can you tell me the reason I am being blocked? I did nothing wrong on this page other then delete information that people said was cited information, however when I went to research the books the users said they got the information from, I did not find it anywhere, so I deleted it. I also added information to the page that if you click the text or image (i.e. Kapoor, it would tell you that all Kapoors are Khatris. I am not sure why SITUSH is under the impression that I am doing anything wrong, he is merely trying to make this page as he seems fit. Please remove my block kind sir/madam!. Thank you very much KhatriNYC3 (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You don't seem to have responded to any of the warnings you were given regarding edit warring; that's why you are blocked. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
KhatriNYC3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What do you mean I neer responded to any of the warnings I was given regarding edit warring? With all due respect, this person Sitush is changing the Khatri page to how he/she seems fit to make it. He claims that putting Kshatriya at the top of the article is not valid, yet other Indian communities that have Wiki pages place the term Kshatriya in the first few setences of their page, yet he/she has no problem with that. However, when it comes to the Khatri page, he/she says it should not be there. This is hyprocracy on Sitush's part, and I will not stand for it, nor will anyone else.KhatriNYC3 (talk) 11:59 am, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
When we say "you've never responded to any of the warnings", we mean exactly that. You are blocked for edit warring and your block will not be lifted early until you address your behavior, not the actions of others. TNXMan 16:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
KhatriNYC3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
How can I "address my behavior" unless you unblock me? Should I "address my behavior" in the one place you admins are allowing me to edit, meaning in this section? KhatriNYC3 (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As per comments below. If, after re-reading the guide to appealing blocks, you still have questions, you can raise them on this page and add the template {{admin help}}. —An optimist on the run! 19:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
- Yes. You should have read the guide to appealing blocks by now. It tells you how to formulate your unblock ... using it to ask questions like this is not the way to move forward. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. Please read the guide and reformulate your unblock request. Repeated unblock requests which do not address the reason for your block may result in the loss of your ability to edit even this page, so please do as suggested. —DoRD (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
KhatriNYC3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello Wiki admins, I have had time over the weekend to think about why I was blocked. I believe you are trying to maintain order on Wiki site (and for good reasons), and I did not follow protocol. At this time, I would request my block be removed with the intention that I will follow all the guidelines. Thank you for your consideration! KhatriNYC3 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am perfectly willing to consider unblocking your account, and I am pleased that you have moved to taking a more constructive line than you did in your first unblock requests. However, you have still not shown that you appreciate why you were blocked: "I did not follow protocol" does not really indicate whether you really do understand what the problem is or not. I suggest thinking very carefully about that before making another unblock request, and making sure that you do show an understanding of the reason for the block, otherwise that request will probably be declined too. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
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.