User talk:Rockstar1984

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, Rockstar1984, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Gaurav (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Pune

An inauspicious start: I've reverted your first edit on Pune, because I think that paragraph is important in Pune's history. If you disagree, please don't remove the paragraph again: we'll just keep getting rid of each other's paragraph's that way! We can discuss why that paragraph is unimportant on the Talk:Pune page.

Still: it's great to have somebody else working on Pune, trying to bring it up to the high standards expected from any Wikipedia article. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you'll stay!

-- Gaurav (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yadav

Please go to the article's talk page and explain why you are reverting to a very old version, which contains bad sources and fundamental errors. The (weak, but stable) consensus at the talk page is that no policy-compliant, reliable sources have been provided that verify that the current caste called "Yadav" is actually related to much older groups called "Yadava", other than that both groups claim descent from the mythical king Yadu. Or, to be more accurate, some of them may be descendants, but there is evidence that not all of them are, and thus we cannot treat the two groups as the same. As such, the two topics have been split into two different articles (see Yadava).

In any event, it is extremely poor behavior to revert war to a very old version of an article without discussion. It is your responsibility to go to the article talk page and make a case--one that is based on reliable sources. Note, though, that many many many people have been trying to do that, and so far all they can present is their own personal beliefs, blogs, self-published websites, ancient religious documents (which, of course, offer no evidence for the current caste), and other sources that don't meet WP:RS. If you continue to revert instead of discussing, you can be blocked for edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a final warning. If you continue edit warring on Yadav, I will request that you be blocked. You are reverting to a version from a long time ago, with many clearly identified problems, with no consensus. Discuss it on talk. Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS and collaboration, not just by trying to force your way. Edit warring solves nothing and will only lead to you being blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Yadav. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the 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 without further notice. Sitush (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit to User talk:Sitush. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warring

You have had a lot of warnings about edit warring at Yadav. Revert something one more time without discussion and I will seek administrative intervention in order to curb your disruption. This has gone on long enough. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC) --- Pls go ahead, you don't own that page.we all are free to contribute.Why should we have only those pics that you like[reply]

I have now reported you at WP:3RRNB. You've had plenty of warnings and advice beforehand. FYI, your attacks here and here on my own talk page have drawn attention to yourself from admins anyway, since some watch that page. I'd suggest that you take the time to review WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VANDALISM during your block, since my edits are not in fact vandalism.

I am more than happy to explain things to you but this is impossible when you adopt such a "head in the sand" position. Perhaps we can start over when your block is over, assuming that you have done some reading up during that time. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 21 October 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 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--thanks.Will keep in mind--Rockstar1984 (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

self revert

Hi - please go to the article and self revert to avoid a block - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have reverted back the changes.However request you to proceed with investigation of user Sitush and Flower being the same person and that is how they are getting the consensus on the page--Rockstar1984 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - you will have to wait and see the outcome of the report but your reverting will give you a good chance to avoid a editing restriction. Please don't edit the article for the next 24 - 48 hours or you will be getting reported again - you can of course join in discussion on the talkpage - follow WP:TPG - Take your time - choose one issue at a time and talk about it on the talkpage. Read some of our policies and guidelines and consider WP:ADOPTION as it is beneficial to new users. I suggest you forget the low possibility that there is anything worth reporting at WP:SPI - you need evidence for that and I can't see any. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar1984, if one user is pretending to be two separate ones, it is called sockpuppeting, and is very much frowned upon. If you wish to open an investigation of Sitush and Fowler&Fowler, the fastest way is to enter details here: [1]. JanetteDoe (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert

Please self-revert this. It is a simply ridiculous thing to do. - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given a single logical reason for the issues raised by me. Revert can't be done as per your whims and fancies.No one except you seems to be having issues with that. Request you to have a broader mindset and stop hunting for only negatives about Yadav.--Rockstar1984 (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for tendentious editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, Pls justify as to why I am being blocked.I admit initially i was not aware of WP policy and hence made more than 3 reverts but now I have gone through them and have been doing things as per policy. You yourself can go through the Yadav page and see that I have made changes as per consensus. No one except Sitush seems to be having problem with it.Sitush's personal problem with Yadav is already raised as an issue with an administrator. Where have i gone wrong ? Looks like for wiki admins, if they have to chose between a person with 50 edits and 5000 edits, they will always support person with 5000 edits no matter what wrong he has been doing. request you to lif this ban immediately or tell me what is the escalation process to do this

Dude, it was like watching a runaway train - I tried to advise you , as you reminded me of when I arrived here, rushing off to right all the wrongs when I didn't even understand any policies. I asked you to back off, seek adoption,, leave the article and branch out on some other articles and get some experience, use discussion, stop editing the article for a day or two - and you didn't listen, you dived back in, adding templates removing long established content. I suggest you take the 24 hours (forget the unblock requests, you need to understand why you were blocked and the admin would need to be sure you would not return to similar activity) and read a few of en Wikipedia:Policy and guidelines and come back with a fresh start. You need to understand, most articles here are far from perfect and it take time to improve them and there is no deadline - if it happens next week its great, if it happens next month its also great. - Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob, admit my mistake, wasn't aware of the policies..but have read in detail now. Anyways, what Sitush is doing on yadav page is not write.His reasons are flawed. The definition he has given right now for "non-elite" is completely incorrect. Request you to please wait till I am unblocked. I will answer your queries.till then make no changes on Yadav.I assure that I wont repeat my mistakes again, however, I still don't agree with the complete hijack of Yadav by Sitush. Anyways, request you to please wait.Cheers !!--Rockstar1984 (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have read the policies now? Including WP:NPA and WP:AGF? I've "hijacked" nothing. I have not even inserted the "non-elite" phrase, anywhere in any article. As I said above, I happy to let bygones by bygones when your block is done, but you are not even taking the most basic advice that has only just been reiterated to you: try contributing to other articles & picking up some experience. You are not the only person capable of "fighting the corner" for the Yadav community, or what ever your perception is of your actions. - Sitush (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, how can anyone assume good faith when you have been writing so much against Yadavs on that page.It is evident from the discussions, how conveniently you have been selecting sources for negatives and then conveniently rejecting the same sources for the positives. You are the only person spamming on that article and vandalizing it. Yes, I will contribute to other articles on Wiki too, but let me first correct things on Yadav as so much wrong has been going on there.You got Ikonoblast banned and now you have got me banned and you will get anyone banned you differs from your biased stand on Yadavs but I am not going to give up.I will follow all WP policies and will ensure that I get things corrected on Yadav and dont let your and fowlers personal views dominate that page.Peace !!--Rockstar1984 (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar1984, if you are using ban and block as synonyms then you have not read as much policy as you claim to have. I suggest WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK to start. Also, since you use the terms freely, you may want to acquaint yourself with WP:SPAM and WP:VANDAL. Wikipedia has a lot of policies and they take time to learn and can be confusing and frustrating at times, but if you are patient and respectful, you will find that other editors will be willing to help you. Note, patient and respectful applies even towards those you disagree with. And I'd suggest that you practice applying the policies FIRST on other articles where you don't have as strong a feeling. If you insist on dashing first back to Yadav and righting great wrongs against others' advice, then I would expect to see you back here again, but for longer. JanetteDoe (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Yadav". Thank you.

attention! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.23.252 (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions

You need to know this before you go any further - please see the note below. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.