User talk:Prashantv79

Kurmi discussion

Greetings, I have moved your new comment to the bottom of the page, as Talk page comments are generally put in chronological order with newest at the bottom, unless you're replying to a specific point made earlier. Being that your concerns were more general, I've put them as the newest comments at the bottom and replied to them there: Talk:Kurmi#Sudra.2C_yet_again. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

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:Kurmi. 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) 18:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Kurmi with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Katieh5584 (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Places to file complaints

Greetings, if you have concerns about my editing, you have several recourses. Your previous post calling for action was removed by another editor as inflammatory, but you may certainly file a complaint at any of the above below resources (or others you may prefer) to ask for outside opinion. You can then post a link to that complaint on Talk:Kurmi, provided it is phrased in a neutral way: "a complaint has been filed, here is the link." If it is phrased as "hey guy's let's all go get rid of this jerk" it will be removed again as WP:Canvassing, but again a neutral invitation for people to come to the discussion is advisable and recommended.

Here are the two major places to file complaints:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard - a place to express concerns about bias in an article
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - this is not a place for content issues ("he says they're Shudra but he's wrong because..."). This is only a place to file complaints about behaviour, such as people violating Wikipedia rules or policies, being abusive, edit warring, etc. If you come to this board, ensure you can note specific violations of WP policies, and use the "History" button and the "Show differences" tool to get a link to show specifically what improper edits have been made. A generic "I don't like so and so and he's being unfair" will gain no sympathy.

Hope this helps, just wanted to note that you have various options, but accusing people on a Talk page isn't the way to do it. Either file a formal complaint, or stop accusing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered very rude to speculate as to others editors' background, and particularly to attempt to discredit their edits by saying "oh, you're a Hindu/Muslim/Christian, no wonder you wrote that wrong stuff." Further, it's funny you say that, because Muslims accuse me of being a Hindu all the time if they get upset at my edits. Point is, my edits aren't involved in your religious quarrels. If you have a complaint about the article, file a claim, or else stop posting complaints that you aren't willing to follow up on. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't attack, I said

Why, within minutes of me pointing out that you should not attack people, did you post a niggling contribution to the user's own talk page? It achieves nothing and has been removed by me. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other contributors, as you did with this edit to User talk:Sitush. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Katieh5584 (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Kurmi, you may be blocked from editing.

People link to section titles on talk pages. Changing the title throws the linking out and therefore should not be done. Sitush (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusive behaviour towards other editors, and probable sock or meat puppetry. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2011 (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).

Prashantv79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The sources cited in Kurmi page are not accurate, and the user is trying to provide wrong information about an entire community. Please read this book: [1] Prashantv79 (talk) 2:40 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TN X Man 20:22, 11 July 2011 (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).

Prashantv79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand why account was blocked. I have gone through the list of DO's and Dont's on WP, and I will abide by them. I have not indulged in socketpuppetery or meatpuppetry, so please remove my account from these checks. I request you to remove the block. I am a legitimate user and I have not damaged WP in anyway. Prashantv79 (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - this unblock is made moot by the one below (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:12, 11 July 2011 (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.

As has been explained many, many times on the Talk page: "Martial Races of Undivided India" is a piece of hackwork which appears to be largely copy-pasted from Wikipedia. It is not a reputable academic work, and is not worth citing, or a credible defence of any statement.

Hi Zebedee,

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).

Prashantv79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have already explained you the reason why I commented on the user Matthews. Apart from blocking my ID, you have placed a blocked on my IP address. The user Matthews posted a comment on my page, and that's how I got to know this user. As I have explained earlier, I am not involved in any socket puppetry.

I want to report Matthews for posting on my talk page. While he could have explained his edits on the Kurmi page, rather than put his uninvited comments on my page.

I hope this explains.

Thanks, Prashant

Decline reason:

Matthew's comments on this page are a) helpful, b) polite, and c) what we expect in a collegial environment. Constructive advice is something you should accept, and not something to be attacked. In your unblock request, you seem to continue to believe your attack on a helpful editor was still valid, and you judge it to be acceptable behaviour - it is not. As you do not clearly understand the inappropriateness of that line of action, and then continue to attack others who dare to use your communication page in the manner it's intended for - to communicate with you there is no possible way to unblock you at this time. Before ever requesting another unblock, read WP:5P, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL, followed by WP:GAB. Furtehr unblocks that do not address YOUR behaviour will lead to a complete lockdown of this page (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:18, 11 July 2011 (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.

OK, a few things...

User talk pages are not by invitation only, and if two editors have a personal disagreement, then that is exactly where it should be discussed. I don't think you'll get anywhere reporting MatthewVanitas, as I don't think he's done anything wrong in posting here.
Trying to edit logged out as an IP while blocked is not allowed - it is you personally who is restricted, not just your account (and the IP is on an autoblock precisely to prevent what you are trying to do).
Carrying on your campaign against MatthewVanitas while blocked for being abusive to him is almost certain to scupper any chance you have of being unblocked.
You may not be involved in sockpuppetry, but I'd expect any reviewing admin to want to see the outcome of the check, just to be sure, so I think it is in your interest to let it run.

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).

Prashantv79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Mr Wilkins, thanks for your constructive comments. I was under the assumption that my talk page is meant for myself, and for those whom I invite. As this is my first editing day on WP, I wasn't aware of this. Since morning, I have been going through the list of DO's and Dont's on WP, so I believe that now I know the editing guidelines on WP. My bad that I didn't know them earlier. I hope that you can remove the block on my ID. I haven't tried to edit while being unlogged. If I did so, it may have been a mistake.

−−−−−−−−−−−

This is what I wrote earlier: I understand why account was blocked. I have gone through the list of DO's and Dont's on WP, and I will abide by them. I have not indulged in socketpuppetery or meatpuppetry, so please remove my account from these checks. I request you to remove the block. I am a legitimate user and I have not damaged WP in anyway.

−−−−−−−−−−

I hope that I can be removed from the block. Thanks a lot for your quick responses.

Thanks, Prashant FYI: I am not requesting to be excluded from "socketpuppetery or meatpuppetry".

Prashantv79 (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the data below, you've actively used a sockpuppet, TomPaul67, to evade your block during the actual time that you were requesting unblock here. If we were to lift your block now, we would be rewarding misbehavior. I am disabling your access to this talk page since you've already missed several opportunities to agree to follow our policies. To make any further requests for unblock, you can send mail to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2011 (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.

But as I say, it's up to someone else to review your unblock request now, not me, so please just be patient and wait -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an piece of advice, you're not going to get your block undone by saying "they're wrong". You were blocked for making personal attacks. Getting your block lifted would involve you agreeing not to make personal attacks in the future, and unless that occures I don't imagine the admin will lift your block. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MatthewVanitas: You are projecting a wrong history of an entire society. Why is it that only sources that are saying what you want to hear are acceptable? Anyways, I consider what you have done as a personal disservice to the entire society. First, you wanted reliable sources; Now that I have provided sources, you are getting me blocked. Thanks.

The reason for your block is nothing to do with your disagreement over the content of the article or with the use of any of its sources - it is for your abusive attacks on other people. We behave here in a collegial way, by civilly discussing content and sources on the relevant article Talk pages - not by lashing out and insulting people we disagree with. There has been large scale abuse of a number of hard-working editors on several caste articles over recent months, and it simply will not be tolerated - there are several admins watching, and people who further this abuse will quickly be shown the door. Oh, and your block was not brought about by MatthewVanitas either. I blocked you purely on the basis of your edit history showing little more than personal attacks, against the same people who have been victims of similar attacks by a number of other people who are currently blocked - which seems like an interesting coincidence for someone who has only been registered here for a few hours. I have added you to this sockpuppet investigation, so we'll see what turns up - if you're innocent of sockpuppetry and you can convince an admin that you will stop the attacks and adhere to civilized behaviour here, then you might have a chance of being unblocked, but I think it will be slim. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zebedee: I am not sure why you think that I joined Wiki to attack the person MatthewV. I was searching for Kurmi, and I saw some wrong info about Kurmis being termed as Sudras. I don't think that being a Sudra is wrong. Just that this user is portraying wrong info. On trying to edit that page, I see that page has been marked as protected, and it required me to create a login. So that's what I did. Now when I put a comment on the talk page for Kurmi article, Mr Matthews came and put a comment on my page directly. He moved my content. Is that right? And he put a comment: Sudra, yet again: I take strong offence to that. Now by blocking me, you are not doing a correct thing. I have not been on Wiki since ages, but I can't accept wrong information being provided about my society. Thanks. I expect something decent from Wiki.

You're really not listening, so I'll tell you again - but I will say this only once... You were blocked for making personal attacks, not for your disagreement over the content of the article. You were welcome to civilly discuss the article content and its sources, on the article Talk page, but you are *not* permitted to argue by making personal attacks on other people and vilifying their motives. If you can start to understand that, then maybe you can persuade an admin to unblock you. Having a read of and absorbing WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA might be a good way to start - they are key requirements of editing here, and are not negotiable. Oh, and please *stop* putting everything in unblock request templates - only ONE is needed, and further discussion is done by just comments like this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zebedee. Now I understand. I am happy that you pointed them to me. I would be obliged if you can remove the block. I will go through the list that you just sent. Thanks a lot for responding quickly.

I think to be unblocked you would need to come back here after having read and understood those policies, and then convince an admin that you are committed to following them. The unblock request should be handled by another admin, and they are free to make their decision without needing to ask me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think that Boing! said Zebedee would usually unblock you. Usually, unblock requests are dealt with by a different admin because this ensures impartiality etc. What you need to do is read the info BsZ mentioned above and then explain that you have done so and understand where you went wrong. If you also agree to abide by what you have read then perhaps the unblocking admin will agree. Hope this helps. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush: Are you an editor, or you are one of the admins? I fully disagree with that article. Though the article has some correct info, but the article has termed Kurmis as Sudras. This representation is inaccurate, and biased. Now that this account is blocked, it is like shutting down the mouth of differing opinion. I was provoked into putting comments on Matthew's page and your page. Just because you knew the rules, you got me blocked. Now that I know the rules, I will play by them. By blocking an account you won't achieve much. I am a legitimate person, and therefore, I am requesting this block to be removed.

No, Sitush DID NOT get you blocked - I blocked you, and I alone, as I have already explained. And now he is trying to help you by explaining the unblock process. Now, if you want your "mouth of differing opinion" to be open again, you need to stop arguing about the article here, go read those links properly and understand them, and then convince an admin that, if they unblock you, that mouth will be a civil one and will not be used to make further accusations against other editors. Unblock can only happen *after* you have done that, not before. I really am trying to help you get back to editing here - but it is you who needs to do the convincing now -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zebedee: Please check the list of talk back on Kurmi article. So many users have taken an offence to that term "Sudra" for Kurmis. Can you let me know what is the process to remove that term? I am new, but you seem like a nice helpful person. As evident by your help to Matthews and Sitush.

Thanks

I am a contributor, like you. However, even if I were an admin I would not be able to unblock you because I am "involved" with you and therefore not impartial. - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Can you let me know what is the process to remove that term?". The first step is to get yourself unblocked, as explained above. After that, go to the article's Talk page and civilly explain what is wrong with the term, and also provide reliable sources to back you up - sources which are demonstrably more trustworthy than those currently used in the article. Then if you can get a consensus of editors to agree with you, based on the sources you provide, the article can be changed. But for now, the only thing that matters is the first step -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zebedee: thank. Can you comment on this too? How do we (Kurmi Community) get this wrong information removed? It seems Sitush, Matthews, and a few other users are presenting wrong information about us. Is this a good faith step by them? I have already pointed one source, and I can point thousands more that are not on the net. How can you or WikiPedia help us in that?

I did go through this link: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF and as per this, this article about "Kurmi" is not in good faith. Please also go though the talk back on the article.

I expect an impartial judgement from someone like you.

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

Zebedee: Please check the list of talk back on Kurmi article. So many users have taken an offence to that term "Sudra" for Kurmis. Can you let me know what is the process to remove that term? I am new, but you seem like a nice helpful person. As evident by your help to Matthews and Sitush.

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

Prashantv79, I think you have misunderstoof WP:AGF. That guideline is as much about how people behave towards each other, as well as what an article says. You need to re-read it, plus read the other stuff as explained earlier. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To further clarify, no-one is going to discuss the Kurmi article with you here because it is an inappropriate forum. Any discussion needs to take place where all interested parties have a reasonable chance of seeing it and commenting. Far more people will be interested in the Kurmi talk page than in your own talk page, so that is the central place where the discussion should occur. - Sitush (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding judging the article and its sources, I'm afraid I won't be able to help with that - and that's for a very specific reason. I have chosen to act in an admin capacity regarding that article and several similar ones, which means I need to keep myself away from any actual content investigations and opinions. If I were to investigate the sources and form my own opinions on the content, that would then prohibit me from acting as an admin (the WP:INVOLVED policy explains it). So as I think my acting in an admin role is necessary on those articles, I am thus restricted in what I can do. I can enforce Wikipedia policies (like the ones I have indicated in this discussion, for example), and I can offer judgments on any consensus discussions that might take place - but only to help decide *if* a consensus exists and what it says, not whether it is right or wrong. And as Sitush says, the content discussion will not take place here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zebedee:Boing! said Zebedee Thanks a lot for your last response. I totally agree with you. After seeming myself being blocked, I lost total faith in WikiPedia, and I thought that WikiPedia is not as unbiased as I thought. Also, I was thinking that Wiki is "involved" in putting wrong info about an entire society. But after getting more insights about your thought process, I can confidently say that you did what was correct that time. I fully respect your judgement. I hope that I am removed from this block process. I will learn more about how to invoke a dispute resolution process. I am glad to know that Wiki has such a dedicated group of admins. Somehow, I fail to understand why such a dedicated team of experts still thinks that all the info provided by Matthews ans Sutish is all correct. While, hundreds of people who belong to this Kurmi category believe that it is all wrong. What if someone from an alien planet comes and says that we all humans are actually dead objects. Why? Because it has been written in some books. And any other books that disputes this is not a valid source. I hope you get my message, Zebedee. My two cents about net neutrality.

When you get unblocked, you can come by WP:WikiProject India, which has a discussion board for bringing up India topics. You might find that a more low-key way to start looking for other opinions on the issue. When you do though, make sure to read WP:Canvassing; basically, going somewhere and saying "hey everyone help me come to Page X and win this argument!" is canvassing, but "hey we have a disagreement at Page X, can a few folks interested in Gujarat history come over?" is fine. That way you're not picking and choosing what opinions you want to come to investigate. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Kurmi kshtriya

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Kurmi kshtriya. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Kurmi. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Kurmi - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —SpacemanSpiff 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Dear Mr. Admin, Malicious contents have been provided about the history of a society. By blocking my ID, you are helping the above users. I have already provided one reliable source: http://books.google.com/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false. Let me know if you need more. Thanks. Prashantv79 (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

You only need one unblock request open at a time - anything else you need to add, just add as a comment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajneesh Katiyar for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Sitush (talk) 09:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:TomPaul67 is blatantly a sock of yours, and has been indefinitely blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]