User talk:Wikieditor7799

Important Notice

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.

Sitush (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General notes

Please don't use Raj era sources as you have at Awan (tribe) and elsewhere - see User:Sitush/CasteSources. Please do not misrepresent sources, as you did at the (inappropriate) Awan_(tribe)/Population_estimate. I see you have already had a copyright warning, so that is one less for me to write now.

You might want to change your user page, too. It's your page and you have a fair amount of leeway in terms of what you do with it but The less you care what others think, The Happier you'll be isn't going to send a good signal to your fellow contributors. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you seem to be suggesting that you will stick two fingers up to that. - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. I read User:Sitush/CasteSources and it does not tell to not use sources from Edward Balfour. It was the only raj era source (not technically tough cuz it was "Published" in 70s) which i used rest were all non-raj era sources. Sources were not misrepresented at Awan_(tribe)/Population_estimate, the source does mention Awan population of 1901 on page 542. and can't we use raj era sources for statistics only? Wikieditor7799 (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Balfour book you cited is a 1976 reprint of the Raj era original. And if you check my edits to Awan_(tribe)/Population_estimate then you will see that you grossly misrepresented what was said in the sources (as well as using the Raj era Risley stuff). - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes i used the wrong figure by mistake (it was for punjab province only). the correct total figure was 685,911 as of 1901. cant we use Balfour? and why?

I know he is of raj era but he was an independent Scottish author. its like saying that ibn batuta is not reliable because he visited and wrote about an area where the government was trying to change the history of the ethnic groups in the area. Whatever the government was trying to do ibn batuta was still be independent author. isnt'it?

can't we use risley stuff for statistical figures at least?Wikieditor7799 (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted you there again. Your efforts use the Raj era Balfour, you now admit in your edit summary to assuming a source is controversial, you have reinstated some appalling style that just turns the article into a series of quotations, and I think you're effectively trying to whitewash some things. It will not do and any more of it is likely to land you in a bit of trouble. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou i will revert your edits and remove the statement which use balfour as a source. but my question remains that why can't we use balfour as a source? I am not a fan of him or something but it would help if you shed light on why i can't use him as a source cuz he was not a brit and had no involvement with raj. any controversial point or a non controversial but biased point should be qouted as per my knowledge but i could be wrong, please enlighten me if i am wrong. i did not understand what you mean by whitwash?

again i request you to please discuss everything on talk page or this user talk page before reverting it again. it hurts when someone just delete all your effort without even explaining the things properly.Wikieditor7799 (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given you a link above to why Balfour cannot be used. I am not sure if you are yet aware of WP:BRD but you need to be, and if you revert me again you will also find out about WP:3RR. Look, you have come from nowhere, seemingly made a few edits so you can get over the bar to contributing at the Awan article, and then you're disrupting it just like other caste/tribe warriors did before you, as recently as perhaps a week ago. You can take your concerns to Talk:Awan (tribe) if you wish. Just be aware that my position will not change regarding the edits you have been making. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou The link which you gave does not mention balfour and the reasoning given in the link to consider raj sources unreliable does not apply to bakfour at all. can you can tell me why he is not a reliable source please? i read WP:BRD, it says that when reverting you should tell specific reason for why you are doing that but all you say in the edit summary was a plain "no". does it matter where i come from? i don't think so. and if i want to edit some article with protection is it a bad thing if i try to meet the criteria for it? i don't think so. i dont have any concerns that i need to discuss at Talk:Awan (tribe) but you seem to have some cuz you keep reverting me which you can take to Talk:Awan (tribe). your statement Just be aware that my position will not change regarding the edits you have been making isn't going to send a good signal to your fellow contributors as [you yourself said]

Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you seem to be suggesting that you will stick two fingers up to that.
— Sitush

Awan

I think perhaps you need to start thinking about editing articles other than Awan (tribe). I have just had to revert you again, in part because joshuaproject is not considered to be a reliable source. It has been discussed at WP:RSN. Maybe try editing some articles that are not about castes or tribes until you get a better grasp of what is and isn't acceptable. Bishonen may have thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on reliable sources or you may be topic banned

Hello, Wikieditor 7799. Yes, as a Wikipedia administrator, I do have some advice for you. The least you can do is look at the sources you cite, and try to develop some sense of whether they are reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is what sources used for Wikipedia articles must be, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Especially for articles about castes and social groups, which are subject to very much non-neutral editing by caste members and others. Now please take a look at the joshuaproject page on Awan, which you used today for the infobox of Awan (tribe). Read it, please. You see where it says "submit update"? Anybody can change the information given by simply clicking there. No user-generated site can ever be a reliable source. And the page has text such as for example "Pray the Lord will begin to stir the hearts of these people to yearn for a Savior for their sin. Pray they will come to believe that Jesus (whom Muslims call Isa al-Masih) did indeed die for their sins, and that he rose from the dead". The Joshua project is an American Christian organization with the goal of identifying people who "do not have enough worshipers of Jesus Christ" and provide the needs and support to evangelize about Christianity and Jesus. I got that from our article Joshua Project, where you can also read about the criticism of the project. But, as I said, just looking with some care at the page you used as a reference should have told you it was no good.

You need to listen to Sitush's good advice and try to learn. Also, as Sitush says above, the sensitive caste articles are not the best place to practice on. If you are going to continue editing caste pages, have you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and User:Sitush/CasteSources ? Read them properly and taken them on board? Because I'm afraid that is the least you need to do, just for a start. You will be topic banned from caste pages if you don't start to edit more cautiously, and try to edit more competently. I'm sorry, it may sound harsh, but I'm afraid nobody here has the time to fix all your references for you or to explain over and over. Good luck. Bishonen | tålk 15:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thankyou very much for taking time to explain me about the joshua project. I will be cautious next time before citing any source. i think that i will edit caste articles most of the time cuz i am interested in editing ethnic groups related articles. sitush seems to be a very good guy but i dont know why he keeps reverting me. like a info box is a good thing and he could have deleted information which used joshua project as a source instead of deleting it all. same thing goes for balfour i mean he could have deleted statements who had balfour as source instead of deleting it all and when i did the same he again reverted it saying "no". i mean thats not a good thing to do even if someone does not have time to explain at least they can specify to why they reverted it in edit summary. that's the least everyone should do i think. i could be completely wrong. these are just my thoughts and once again thank you soo much for your advice. Wikieditor7799 (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

By unquoting the Jaffrelot source in this edit, you created a copyright violation. You also added at least one other - They command high status in the Indian Muslim environment for being Arabs. comes straight out of J. Elias, Jamal (1998). Death Before Dying: The Sufi Poems of Sultan Bahu. University of California Press. p. 12. I've not checked the rest, some of which I don't think I can see fully. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, forgot to paraphrase while unquoting the statements. i think quotes were not needed there.

But now you have said that the Awans are of Arab origin when you know very well that is disputed and, indeed, very unlikely. Even the other source you yourself introduced (Elias) just says that they claim it. - Sitush (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much for pointing it out brother. wikipedia really needs helping senior editors like you. Thankyou once again. Wikieditor7799 (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but no. I can't spend masses of my time checking up on your numerous mistakes. Caste/tribe stuff is a very sensitive area, which is why I alerted you right at the top of this page. We have thousands of articles related to them and far too few people who are sufficiently competent to do more than fix blatant vandalism. So I think those few (including me) could do without the extra work you are creating. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from editing any pages or discussions related to castes or social groups.

You have been sanctioned for creating too many problems of sourcing and copyright violations, despite good intentions.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. Bishonen | tålk 21:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor7799, I appreciate your politeness in thanking both me and Sitush for advice and help. But at the same time you don't seem to profit much from it. Since you won't take our advice to practice on other kinds of articles, I have now topic banned you from castes and social groups, per the template above; that means you'll have to practice elsewhere. Please continue to edit Wikipedia and learn the ropes — just not in those sensitive articles. After no less than six months, you can appeal the ban. Well, formally, you're allowed to appeal it at any time, but you won't have much chance of having the ban lifted before six months have passed and you have worked in other areas to improve your skills. Bishonen | tålk 21:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Violation of your topic ban

This post is a violation of your topic ban. Did you read WP:TBAN, as I urged you to? A topic ban applies to all pages and discussions on Wikipedia. I won't block you for this first violation, but if there is a next one, I will. Again, please read WP:TBAN. It's quite short. You are free to ask me questions about the ban, here or on my own page, if it's not quite clear to you. Bishonen | tålk 17:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]