User talk:Sam.Johnanderson

October 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to List of programs broadcast by StarPlus has 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.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: List of programs broadcast by StarPlus was changed by Sam.Johnanderson (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.934252 on 2018-10-15T15:27:10+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Tu Sooraj Main Saanjh, Piyaji. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Diff: [1] If low TRPs was a cause for the series to end, that should be fairly easy for you to document. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2018 (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 inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic 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/South Asian social groups.

—SpacemanSpiff 00:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nai (caste)

You're still doing it at Nai (caste). See WP:V, which is the most obvious reason why your edit is inappropriate. See WP:PUFFERY for reasons that may not be immediately apparent to you. I'm pretty sure I told an anonymous contributor much the same thing for the same content a few days ago - if that was you then please also be aware that creating an account doesn't actually make your contributions any more valid than they were previously.

You have to stop this type of behaviour and quickly, otherwise you will find yourself blocked from contributing. I see you have already had a few issues and an alert regarding our topic-specific sanctions. You cannot just write what you think or believe to be "true" on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Nai (caste), 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. NitinMlk (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not cite random blogs, as they are not acceptable on this project, per WP:UGC. For caste-related details, you will have to find academic sources: see WP:HISTRS. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s reliable!

No, as I've already mentioned, please see WP:UGC. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please do not add fake citations, as you have done at least thrice to the article Nai (caste). In 2019, you claimed that The Caravan article "clearly" mentions the Nai caste. Recently, you added it back arguing "although, it doesn’t mention the caste...". Your edits vary from outright fabrication to original research, which is not acceptable. utcursch | talk 10:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well no it’s relevant! Everything in the website mentions what I’ve wrote - I’ve just summarised it further. Read it carefully. I will have to report you for reporting fraudulent information to me if you keep removing it and claiming that it doesn’t contain it. It does. Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Dalit activist Kancha Ilaiah mentions Nairs in the source, not Nais. And your misrepresentation of that source has already been reverted by multiple editors, including Utcursch & Sitush. So please do not reinstate that again. If you still have any doubt then ask at Talk:Nai (caste). BTW, in his article of The Caravan, he mentions his 1996 book titled Why I Am Not a Hindu. So I have just crosschecked that book, as I have access to it. And it doesn't mention Nai caste anywhere in it. BTW, here's the relevant quote about his so-called neo-Kshatriyas (from the book's page no. 35):

If Hinduism were to establish, even within the spiritual domain, an attractive relationship of humanity, perhaps Hinduism would have become a universal religion earlier than Buddhism, Christianity or Islam. The family structure that it established, instead of attracting fellow human beings, repelled them. It established a market system that created structures that sucked the energy of Dalitbahujan masses who were denied even that notional right to swarga. The Hindus are the only people who converted even spirituality and the promise of redemption in the other world into the private property of only Brahmins, Vaisyas and Kshatriyas. Unfortunately, the 'Sudra upper castes' (like Reddies, Kammas, Velamas in Andhra Pradesh; Marathas, Patels, Jats, Rajputs, Bhumihars in North India) who are emerging slowly as neo-Kshatriyas are moving into the fold of Hindutva both physically and mentally.

So please stop this disruptive behaviour at the Nai (caste) article. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So wait I thought nais were also one of the upper shudra castes to. Also nairs are also known as nais. Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am fed up of this - you've just done it again today. All these years of trying and having people explain why you are incorrect yet you continue to disrupt. Let's see what an admin thinks about your behaviour - @Bishonen, RegentsPark, and Vanamonde93: - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then what are they? Nairs are also known as nai. Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting an admin in won’t make any difference to be honest because what I’ve wrote is relevant to the caste and reliable. Although, I’ve also just realised the source doesn’t specifically mention nai and nair instead - it still doesn’t matter because nai was still classed as one of the shudra castes too and now Kshatriya. Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you still don’t believe me read this source - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fjO6DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT59&lpg=PT59&dq=why+are+shudras+lost+nai&source=bl&ots=nPmFYwr8jS&sig=ACfU3U0rTs80yctMFzMJZFu0O8ZvdUW00Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjw7IyBgq_qAhW8TxUIHYcrDwAQ6AEwDXoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=why%20are%20shudras%20lost%20nai&f=false.

Specifically when it says they descend from a Kshatriyas and shudra basically means they were known as the upper shudras. The source I mentioned before said upper shudras and listed some examples of the castes - but nai is a very uncommon caste hence why he didn’t include it, but despite this you can’t say that nais are not classed as Kshatriyas because since they one of the upper shudra castes, they are also now known as the neo khastriya - hence why it is mentioned in the source I used for, although it’s name is not included. Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't say what you claim. It says there is a legend and it is talking about Muslims, who don't believe in Hindu concepts anyway. I strongly suggest you don't edit even on this page until your block is up. The only reason you should edit here is to file an unblock request. I will not be responding further. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not talking about Muslims you stupid - read it carefully there are Hindus mentioned too. Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One sec I’ll just copy and paste it - the specific bit;

Update - not letting me. Go to page 60 and 61.
Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Bishonen | tålk 11:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

July 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent disruptive editing on caste articles going back years. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 12:00, 2 July 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Being misunderstood. Sitush is not understanding my claim - when it’s vividly written in the sources I’ve provided except it doesn’t include the caste it self, however I’ve also included a another source which shows that they were also classed as the upper shudras too.

Decline reason:

I see no misunderstanding here. You are trying to use a source incorrectly, and you are being disruptive over caste issues. I would only unblock you early if you showed you understood where you were wrong, or agreed to a one year topic ban from castes, broadly construed. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:24, 2 July 2020 (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.

Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m immensely sorry and I accept my mistake. Please forgive me and shorten my blocked time. Thanks Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Devoleena Bhattacharjee

added a link pointing to Bengali

Rupal Patel

added a link pointing to Gujarati

Vandana Vithlani

added a link pointing to Gujarati

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Devoleena Bhattacharjee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bengali.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karisma Kapoor lead image

Please see the discussion at Talk:Karisma_Kapoor#Lead_image.Ravensfire (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a specific note - WP:BRD is the preferred editing approach. Bolding make a change, but if it's Reverted, start a Discussion on the article talk page. Some of the drama could have prevented by doing what I've started after you were reverted. It doesn't mean you accept what was there, but that you realize someone else may disagree, and a discussion could lead to a consensus on one version or the other or (ideally!) a good compromise. Ravensfire (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry. I accept my mistake. Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. You're reverting back and forth with Luckstar23 on multiple pages. Both of you need to stop revert and start discussions on talk pages. You will end up blocked for edit-warring if this continues. While the 3 revert limit is a bright-line violation, repeatedly reverting across days can be an edit-war and can result in a block. I've warned Luckstar23 on this, this is your warning as well. Ravensfire (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not using copyrighted material? It’s all available for common use Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. It's only "available for common use" because you downloaded them from Instagram etc. and put them on Commons. The only question I have, and I'd like to hear from Ravensfire and maybe Bishonen, if this edit war over what seems to be copyrighted content is the straw that broke the camel's back, and if we should extend this block to indefinite. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Drmies, the edit-war, all of them that Sam.Johnanderson has participated in over the past few days, are over images. BRD has that Sam should have been starting discussions on the talk pages, but neither party (Luckstar23, now blocked for 3RR, was the other) bothered with discussions. I'm extremely disappointed that after a pretty clear warning on Commons [2] NOT to upload files from online, they did it again. That worries me, as it seems to be a pattern in their editing style - I am fed up of this - you've just done it again today. All these years of trying and having people explain why you are incorrect yet you continue to disrupt. Let's see what an admin thinks about your behaviour from Sitush on this page in 2020.
  Sam - let me be VERY blunt, you have no clue about copyright for images. Your rationale for everyone one of them is wrong. Yes, people and other websites reuse images, they either ignore the copyright, the license allows personal/not for profit use or they have an arrangement that allows it. Those DO NOT apply here. You're continuing to edit-war, STILL, but now you're uploading the EXACT same image after it was deleted. No discussion, no asking for explanation, just the same "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude you've showed here. On several of the images you were going back and forth with Luckstar23, the image they preferred WAS the better image plus the one you uploaded was a copyright violation. Ravensfire (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:ToBeFree, you blocked this editor's opponent. Do you have an opinion here? Drmies (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Drmies, thanks for the ping. The block was for edit warring, and both users seem to lack fundamental copyright knowledge (see the Commons upload log of Luckstar23). My block happened before the strange "This image is not copyrighted" reverts. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Drmies, considering the user continued to upload non-free files to Commons after this warning by Ravensfire, plus the following six warnings about copyright vios for individual files (see talkpage history), the case seems kind of hopeless. The user is blocked on Commons now, though — rather surprisingly — only for a week. That's possibly because it's their first Commons block, whereas here, they've got form. See the WP block log as well as, even more illustratively, the caste "discussions" above on this page. So I'm afraid I think it's time for indef, yes. Bishonen | tålk 19:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  - TõBeFree, Bishönen, Råvensfire, thank you. Sam, you are blocked indefinitely for all these reasons. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening admin, I accept my mistake. However, I fully think I should not be blocked indefinitely because to be honest I am only 13 and therefore have inadequate knowledge with regards to copyright. I therefore request you to give me another chance, shall there be any mistakes for the foreseeable future, you can block me again. I’m here to make Wikipedia a better place for all of us. I’m extensively sorry. May you please not block me indefinitely - it’s a humble request. Please as we all should learn from our mistakes and you should know how we young people are too moody, please please give me another chance. Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be free, ravensfire, Bishomen and sitush - to all of you, I accept my mistake and accept my lack of knowledge with regards to copyright. Please may you all be able to give me one more chance, yes I kept rejecting the warnings for which I’m sorry for, but please note my age I’m only 13 and mistakes happen, you can’t block a 13 year old from editing Wikipedia for having a lack of knowledge. That’s totally unfair and creates injustice! Please give me another chance it’s a request :(

Sam - Contributer who wants to make Wikipedia a better place Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued; I also didn’t know how to reach a consensus, It’s not my fault, we all learn something new a day. I extensively believe a person who lacks in knowledge for specific subjects such as copyright or a consensus, should been given another chance to improve and learn from the mistakes. Me Ignoring 6 copyright warnings, doesn’t mean I should be banned permanently, I should be banned for a short amount of time instead, that way I can learn from my mistakes and analyse where I went wrong. Please I’m requesting you with full honour, to give me another chance please!

Such mistakes should not be committed again. Shall they do - you’re free to block me.

Sam Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admin, I would appreciate with full pleasure and gratitude, if you may be able to understand my feelings with regards to this. I’m currently in tears now and very upset.

Sam Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to learn from my mistakes and use this to enhance my skills for editing Wikipedia pages ensuring I’m not breaking the rules. I accept my lack of knowledge with regards to copyright and carrying out a consensus.

Sam John Anderson

Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello admin, I’ve decided to leave Wikipedia, due to the constant misunderstandings being created here. I initially intended to contribute in order to make Wikipedia a more superior and reliable place, however if I’m constantly being misunderstood due to having inadequate knowledge with regards to the copyright rules and how to have a consensus. On top of this, not even giving me the privilege to learn from my mistakes and enhance my editing skills and knowledge further is utterly not fair and therefore bias and being hostile - it’s best for me to leave!

Sam

Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, as of now I will not being contributing to Wikipedia, until maybe (not guaranteed) for the foreseeable future.

Sam Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devoleena image

Hi User:Sam.Johnanderson I want to tell you that we don’t use images from Instagram or social media as it’s a copyright issue and also the image currently using is acceptable as it’s from a good site called Bollywood Hungama hope you understand and anyways wasn’t that image already deleted by Ravensfire.

Hello, Thank you for your message. I’m delighted to see how you’ve let me know this, however I don’t understand how images from any social media platform creates copyright issues, if it does the owner will tell them anyways, but that being said they shouldn’t just claim anything is copyrighted without actually checking themselves. For example, they should get it confirmed itself that the specific image is copyrighted by the actress, before taking any action and this is why I’m very upset. I’m here to make Wikipedia a more reliable, better and obliging form to help people gain knowledge from the articles they read here and not to create any copyright issues. If they think, I’m not - it’s best I leave Wikipedia.

Sam - Formal Contributer Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Confirmed themselves * Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam.Johnanderson

You still didn’t understand it was a copyright issue as we don’t use images from social media look in other pages like Deepika Singh, Sidharth Shukla Hina Khan all images are not from Instagram or social media. Here in Wikipedia we don’t use images from Instagram or social media as we tend you use a cite where an licence is available look here for example [3] look there is a licence for the cite and was approved.

If you come back then understand you can get images from Bollywood Hungama as it’s got an copyright licence. Please understand and take that in mind.

[4] please read this to know more about images needed.

Hello, Thanks for the response - yeah I’ve just realised that using material from someone else’s social media without permission from the owner also breaks the copyright law. Oh well at least I know this now and have learnt something new - we all learn something new everyday. However, as of now, as previously mentioned, I will not be contributing to Wikipedia until (maybe) the foreseeable future.

Sam Sam.Johnanderson (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]