User talk:Sriramadas.mahalingam

Sriramadas.mahalingam, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sriramadas.mahalingam! 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 Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Sriramadas.mahalingam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Uniform civil code did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA 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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Uniform Civil Code. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Uniform civil code, (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 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Sriramadas.mahalingam, please attend carefully to Kautilya's attempts to explain what Wikipedia means by reliable sources (please follow the link for an explanation). Just as you say on his page, he is an experienced editor and knows Wikipedia's policies well. Reliable sources are secondary sources (please follow the link) that discuss the content someone wishes to insert — sources such as Sarvadharma or Golwalkar are primary sources (please follow the link) that are only reliable for their own opinion (and in any case that opinion should be cited from somewhere better than Facebook and Youtube). If you wish to insert those opinions in an encyclopedic article, please try first to get consensus (please follow the link for an explanation of what Wikipedia means by consensus) on the talkpage that the opinions are important enough to belong in the article, please see WP:DUE. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if you continue to try to push your version into the article by force (by which I mean by edit warring) instead of via consensus, I'm afraid you will be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 16:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, With regard to your comment at my on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, on the article Uniform Civil Code, like Jawaharlal_Nehru and B._R._Ambedkar stand on the the issue, the stand of M._S._Golwalkar is also important. He was the leader of Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh and the sources that I have cited are his own published by his own Organization. User:Kautilya3 certainly seems to in favour of the what the article intend to bring about and hence isn't letting the other sides of the opinion to come out to the external world. He removed sections bluntly saying they arent from reliable sources. They are indeed reliable sources.I have provided pages from the book published itself.

Bishonen you can follow the clarifications that I have provided in the Talk page of Talk:Uniform_civil_code and ascertain it yourself. If you have any specific issue let me know.

Bishonen has alerted you about reliable sources. Whether something is important or not is a secondary issue. (Again, that importance has to be demonstrated through coverage in the reliable sources. Your own opinion is of no consequence.) You have not yet provided any reliable source for the content you want to see added. Merely repeating yourself again and again is disruptive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Uniform civil code while logged out. 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 and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Uniform civil code. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 10:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about edit warring. It is obvious that the IP 117.254.65.252 is yours, and you have used it to continue edit warring. I have blocked the IP as well. Bishonen | talk 10:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked from Uniform civil code

Hi, S. I'm sorry, but it has become clear that you either can't or won't understand what Wikipedia means by reliable sources. I wrote an explanation as clearly as I could here, and you simply are not taking it on board, as shown by your continued argument here on my page. Two other admins besides me, Drmies and RexxS have tried again to explain to you on my page, and it obviously isn't doing any good. You are using up too much time from admins and experienced users, and you don't seem to be reaping any benefit from their efforts. Therefore, I have blocked you from editing Uniform civil code and its talkpage, where you have been a net negative. (I notice you just added a POV template to the article, presumably as another expression of your suspicions against editors such as Kautilya, and of your refusal to abide by our sourcing policies. I'll remove that.) I'm sorry. People here have had a lot of patience with you as a new user, but I'm afraid it has run out. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 16:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

You have acted in a very biased manner, without going through the details provided. You have acted in favor of people who don't want readers to know the other side of the same matter. Strongly condemn-able action actions from your end without going through the details. Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock | reason=Its okay to follow the dispute resolution process. So do unblock from editing the Uniform Civil Code page.}

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).

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

Request reason:

Sections added to Uniform Civil Code with proper sources are being repeatedly removed by Kautilya3 and unknown IP addresses, despite citing proper sources for the sections. This prevents opinions not in favor of the topic from reaching public. The intention of the removal appear to be the same. Detailed explanation about the sources are at: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Uniform_civil_code#History_of_Stand_of_RSS_and_Jana_Sangh_being_removed_repeatedly. Kautilya3 didn't give any reply after the same but simply kept saying they aren't reliable. POV tag was added and the same has also been removed and not the article presents only favorable opinion on the topic. To present un-biased views to public I need edit access back on the page. Sriramadas.mahalingam (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One unblock request at a time. You have demonstrated an unwillingness to avoid edit warring and are doubling down on this in your unblock request. I see no benefit in lifting the block. WP:GAB explains how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Yamla (talk) 12:31, 17 February 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.

February 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 | talk 17:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to remove declined unblock requests. Oh, I don't care; anybody interested can easily see through the history what happened on this page. You are a disruptive editor and a promotion-only account. Blocking you from only one page turned out to be pointless; you have simply continued your campaign on other pages, and either can't or won't comply with our sourcing principles. See [1]. Bishonen | talk 17:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]