User talk:Lord Aseem

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Your recent editing history at Battle of the Hydaspes 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. Khirurg (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Aseem, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Lord Aseem! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You really need to step back

You are going to get blocked if you continue on this path. Please realize that if you are having a dispute with multiple experienced editors, the odds are pretty good that you are in the wrong, not them. I have left several important pieces of advice at WP:ANEW. In addition, I'll leave a {{welcome}} template below, with advice for new editors. Please read it, and don't dive so quickly into conflict. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Lord Aseem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Then please support my edits yourself. I don't care about Odds when I am right and they are wrong. Look into the sources I have given, look into the language used, my edits have been reviewed by Oshwah and remained unchallenged for over a month, till their edits started with the Only excuse of Me being a imposer of POVs. Their sources are unreliable and trumped by the acclaim of the ones given by me (Nilakanth Sastri), their (Khirurg's) recent edits apart from the reversion are a clear example of Indophobia, Eurocentrism and thus bigotry. In the last edit, he has also insulted me by demanding me to "Stop barking". So far, he has not even responded to my refutation of his accusations on the Talk Page of Battle of Hydapes. So what if they are both senior users? Do my edits require special Skills to be valid? They have been reviewed, they have renowned and reliable sourcrs, the language is directly from the sources, there has been additional contribution more so than just sentence modification. Still I cannot rescue them due to the threat of being blocked? What sort of justice is this. Please, you yourself revert the edits and secure the page. These two will keep delaying and deleting their and mine responses and obsfuscating the matter. Go ahead please and do the necessary. Lord Aseem (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "necessary" is to follow the paths outlined in WP:Dispute resolution to gain consensus. That takes time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you revert the Edits yourself currently as the discussion is ongoing. Shouldn't my original Edits remain while the Talk is on. You know that I am right, then please do this for me. You still have 3 reversions left right? Lord Aseem (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're making me sad; I don't think I'm getting through to you. I don't know you're right; I tend to trust Dr.K, who has been around forever, and your edits do seem to have a POV tone. This may very well be something you folks can hash out on the talk page. I don't think it's accurate to say your edits were reviewed and/or approved by User:Oshwah. Anyway, I'm trying to stop the edit war without blocking anyone, not help you win it. It would be better for you to get consensus first, as the person who wants to add material, per WP:BRD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take Floquenbeam's advice here. If you continue like this you'll be blocked. --John (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done anything since then except speak to Khirurg. What is this warning for? Lord Aseem (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's for edit-warring. See WP:EDITWAR for more details. --John (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Edit war has taken place since the message above you was posted. Currently talks are taking place. Is there glitch? Lord Aseem (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Talk:Sher Shah Suri while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. The same applies to your edits as 115.97.40.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 115.97.53.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), etc. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Your recent editing history at Battle of the Hydaspes 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. Khirurg (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Battle of the Hydaspes. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Dr. K. 04:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lord_Aseem reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 06:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring, as you did at Battle of the Hydaspes. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 14:08, 21 September 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have Not being Edit-Warring. The last reversion was to avail the previous Edit for reversion so I could add in the proper sources necessary. Lord Aseem (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Certainly looks like edit warring to me. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:28, 21 September 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Only the first two edits. The last edit as in the Third one necessary for block rule to apply in 24 Hours is not a Edit war but a reversion to avail a previous edit for reversion to add source and restore it. I have written long lines in defense of myself at the Report page, but nobody seems to have read it. Lord Aseem (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Oh, I'm sorry, you are blocked for edit warring, not for violating the three revert rule. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:33, 23 September 2017 (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.

Return to edit warring

Coming off a block for edit warring just to return to edit warring on Battle of the Hydaspes‎ is not smart. I would strongly suggest you self-revert, engage in the talk page discussion, and gain consensus for your edit(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is another issue, and a minor one compared to others. Why don't you simply look into it and just give your verdict? I will do as is necessary and ensure it happens in limits of Civility and Limitations. Anyhow I did not start the Edit War for which I was banned in the first place but Khirurg did, for which obviously he was not banned.Lord Aseem (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across your latest edits to Rani Padmini and Kanhadadeva: please don't remove bits that are sourced, but that you don't like. Looking at your talk page, and edit history, it is obvious that several other people have problems with your edits. I'd recommend that for at least the next few days, if you want to make an edit, please propose your changes on the talk page first and gain consensus. utcursch | talk 19:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am only removing incorrect, non-existent sourced, or out of context statements. Speaking on Talk Page, who shall respond first? How long should I wait before correcting bombardment of tendentious string of edits like making Padmavati a fictional character and declaring all of her existence's support as unreliable when infavt every historian behind her falsification is a open Marxist-Historiographer whose sole objective endgame is a Anti-Hindu, Left-Wing, Indophobic, Soul-Less, narrative of Indian history. However noble or bad, this is just bias on a site where Neutrality is utmost. Please support me in my endeavours.

I see no reason for your reversion of the edits at Kanhadeva page just because it is duplication. More elaboration is needed on minute events like invasions. Lord Aseem (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing what you think is "incorrect, non-existent sourced, or out-of-context statements". None of the authors cited in the article are "Anti-Hindu, Left-Wing, Indophobic" etc. If you disagree, please present a reliable source that supports your viewpoint. As for "more elaboration" in context of Kanhadadeva, there is an entire article on the topic: Alauddin Khilji's conquest of Jalore. A short summary is all that is neeed in other articles such as Kanhadadeva or Alauddin Khilji.

It's great to see your enthusiasm for history-related articles, but you need to if you continue to display a battleground mentality, you'll end up getting blocked sooner or later. utcursch | talk 19:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for being too aggressive, but it seems there is lot of work to be done in Wikipedia, where most of the Articles I read have already made up their mind as to which characters are fake/cowardly/exaggerated. Lord Aseem (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

—SpacemanSpiff 03:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for personal attacks after prior block expired [1] and continuing 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 ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 11:51, 25 September 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

There has been No personal attacks here. Only commentary on the Edits and not the user. In order to shed context to User Utcursh, who is a Non-South Asian User, about who are possibly agenda-driven folks here, I have given him a clue that the Urdu Name of the user there, a possible Muslim, hints as to why he is so antagonistic towards any form of representation of Muslim that he personally feels is Negative. I am in middle of a important discussion on the page, this is just a small side convo. Also, Please unblock my IP which I share with a multitude of Users who keep contributing to Wikipedia and have nothing to do with me Lord Aseem (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Ultra-bigotted Leftist narratives are being peddled here by Rashkeqamar. His bias is obvious when one percepts his name is a Urdu figure of speech and selectively cites from Swarajya Mag." This is a clear personal attack. Additionally, you have not addressed your edit warring. Yamla (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

A Personal Attack includes Name-Calling,Deriding, Insulting, Making Offensive Jokes, etc. Here I have only spoken on the Nature of his Edits ("*narratives*are being being peddled"), which as I have repeatedly been told is tolerable. I have Pointed out his name as clue to outside Foreign readers to explain how they can recognize potential tendentious vendetta established Users. In the topic concerned here, the story involves a Rapacious Islamic Invader lusting for the wife of a Rajput Hindu King, and the story eventually ends with a Phyrric victory for the invader, while both the King and his queen die battling for their honor. Many misguided Wahabbhi Madrassa educated Muslims in India and Pakistan (Where Saudi has pumped lot of Funding for indoctrination into Salafist ideologies) , look up to such Invaders as heroes and strive to defend them. They attempt to make such stories exaggerations or islamaphobic maligning propaganda. In order to address it, I have opened up a new Thread on the Same page which you can read, which aims to neutralize the Article, currently afflicted with the obvious narrative of the Indian Left-Wing/Wahhabhi/Anti-Hindu nexus,and has already decided Padmini was a false creation. Please understand the full context of my edits and unblock me. I am stuck at a crucial time. Also, like before, also unblock my IP Address which is used by a multitude of users who have nothing to do with me. Lord Aseem (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The personal attack was blatant, and as all we are seeing here is blanket denials which have no hope of being accepted and are just wasting people's time, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of the block. Any further personal attack once the block expires is likely to get you a longer block, possibly indefinite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2017 (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.

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for block evasion using IPs. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. —SpacemanSpiff 08:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]