User talk:ABEditWiki

Hello, ABEditWiki! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi
Thanks for your warm welcome. :)
I am fairly new to Wiki editing, so would like to get as much as help as you can provide.Could you please tell me what is a template? Was there any welcome template? Is there a GUI for a template? If there was one, only by keying in my username ABEditWiki and the post is created on my talk page?
Thanks again.
ABEditWiki (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

A template is a pre-composed block of text and graphics that can be placed (or "transcluded") onto another page by entering an abbreviated text string within curly brackets. For example, placing the code {{WelcomeMenu}} will produce the text above. Some templates can be semi-customized depending on the circumstances. I just happened to notice that you'd created a new user page where you mentioned that you'd like help, so I left the welcome message: there's no automated process on the English Wikipedia, as there is on some wikipedias in other languages. Please remember to sign you posts with four tildes (~~~~), which creates a kind of template with your username and links to this talkpage: it's easier than embedding links manually. Happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Wikipedian! It was much easier to know about templates from your description.
I have given an adoption request following the link. Let us see if I am adopted or not - If not, I will most probably nag you with further questions. ABEditWiki (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! Feel free to ask me questions. I don't do adoptions because I'm not always dependably available due to work and family responsibilities, but I'll be happy to answer questions as I can. By the way, there's a GUI for welcome messages, deletion templates and the like: it's called Twinkle and can be enabled by going to your "My Preferences" link, then "Gadgets". Checking the Twinkle box will add tabs for the tools: it's best to wait until you've gotten a little experience before using them very much, as there are specific circumstances for most. Acroterion (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Hi AB,

Belated welcome to WikiProject India. I'm a volunteer for the WikiProject and the first guy to approach if you need newbie help! :)

Do consider joining the WikiProject India Mailing List (https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-in-en) which provides communication for the community.

For other lists which may be of interest to you, see http://wiki.wikimedia.in/Mailing_Lists.

You may also like to add WP:INB to your watchlist.

Be sure to update yourself at Geographical distribution of Indian Wikipedians. (You'll need to create a user id for editing it).

BTW my initials are AB too! From one AB to another, hi there!

AshLin (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi AshLin, Thanks for the welcome. I have signed up for the mailing list. I have a query about privacy - Will everyone/anyone will be able to see my email id? I have tried, and I am not able to see the list even properly. May be some tech glitch.
Well, I am more lazy than confused here, :), but still I feel the urge to contribute. I am looking towards providing content, and I think 2012 elections in India needs updation. I will try to do it in my sandbox first and will update the article later. Please help with any input as your time permits. :)
Regards AB^TalktoMe 07:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC).Reply
PS: I am unable to get the indentation correct once I start a new line.

Regarding indentation. Each colon indents a line to the right. You have to add as many colons as you need indentation. In conversations, you usually add one more indent then the guy above you. You used one colon, so I am using two.

For each new para, like this one you have to add indentation specifically.

To force a paragraph break, use <br/>
The following sentence gets the same indentation as in this case.

If you have a sentence adjoining an indented sentence but without indentation, it does not get joined up.

To separate paragraphs in unindented text, use a blank line (precedes this para) or a break (succeeds this para).
If you have two sentences separately on line after adjoining, as in this example, they form into one paragraph. (See the wikitext to understand what I'm talking about in these cases).

Hope this clears things up a bit! :)

Don't worry, we are all here to help you anytime you need us. AshLin (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks AshLin, that clears up a lot, including the <nowiki> usage. I was not sure whether we add the same number of colons to each new line. BTW, I don't think you missed my query about privacy. Not that it matters much, but still. :)
AB^TalktoMe 09:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
PS: I can now see the list with all the email ids, along with mine. Sorry for posing some dumb questions. Now, I don't care about privacy much. :) AB^TalktoMe 09:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello friends, we are a number of editors from WikiProject India have got together to assess the many thousands of articles under the stewardship of the project, and we'd love to have you, a fellow member, join us. These articles require assessment, that is, the addition of a WikiProject template to the talk page of an article, assessing it for quality and importance and adding a few extra parameters to it.

As of March 11, 2012, 07:00 UTC, WikiProject India has 95,998 articles under its stewardship. Of these 13,980 articles are completely unassessed (both for class and importance) and another 42,415 articles are unassessed for importance only. Accordingly, a Tag & Assess 2012 drive-cum-contest has begun from March 01, 2012 to last till May 31, 2012.

If you are new to assessment, you can learn the minimum about how to evaluate from Part One of the Assessment Guide. Part Two of the Guide will help you learn to employ the full functionality of the talk page template, should you choose to do so.

You can sign up on the Tag & Assess page. There are a number of awards to be given in recognition of your efforts. Come & join us to take part in this exciting new venture. You'll learn more about India in this way.

ssriram_mt (talk) & AshLin (talk) (Drive coordinators)

Delivered per request on Wikipedia:Bot requests. 00:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC) The Helpful Bot 00:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have created an artcle, The Lokpal Bill, 2011. I need your help for getting it reviewed.
Vaibhavgupta1989 (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi ABEditWiki. I have removed the "request for adoption" template on your userpage, as you have been inactive for over 2 months. Please do replace it if you return. Given the number of users starting on the encyclopedia each day and the number who look for adoption, there can often be a backlog when just displaying the request. You are much more likely to find an adopter if you are pro-active about it, perhaps asking an editor or two from the list of adopters if they would consider adopting you? Good luck in finding someone to help out. Worm^TT(talk) 09:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

-- AB^Talk 12:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would like to add following points for removal of the statement, even if Zwart mentions one or two ' contemporary scholars'. 1. The cited article is not about the claim. 2. There is no wide spread academic or otherwise consensus for making such a sweeping claim. 3. If it is Zwarts' and his ' contemporaries ' opinion, then at best it becomes one of the view points about the interaction between colonial regime and caste system, not an undisputed and authentic entry into lead section of an encyclopaedia. -- AB^Talk 14:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

User:ABEditWiki, you've broken the WP:3RR rule by making four reverts in 24 hours at Caste system in India. There may still be time for you to avoid a block. You can respond and promise to wait for consensus before changing the article again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you user EdJohnston, replied to the notice. Please have a look. Cheers.-- AB^Talk 16:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Believing you are correct and that others are making bad edits is no defense when you've already broken 3RR. If you promise to wait for consensus you may be able to avoid a sanction. Otherwise I'lll go ahead with the block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Of course I will wait for the consensus. AB^Talk 17:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Kautilya3 and myself both agree that this user should be blocked. And we never agree on much.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

To be sure I understand you ABEditWiki, you are promising to make no edit regarding any of the recently contested material at Caste system in India until the others on the talk page support the change? For example, the claim that the caste system was constructed under the British? EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Answer is a yes. Cheers -- AB^Talk 17:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Chief!-- AB^Talk 17:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@EdJohnston: Guess we are going nowhere in the controversial point in Caste system in India. Can you have a look pelase? AB^Talk 20:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

We are going nowhere because ABEditWiki continually ignores Kautilya3 and Ogress's explanations of reliable sourcing etc. This ping is a perfect example of his attitude.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The discussion at Talk:Caste system in India#Removing statement from lead requires you to work patiently with the sources. It is not easy to tell if you yourself have a good understanding of what the sources are saying. If you want to dispute on a complex topic, you must be willing to make the effort. Since I have some concerns that you might be editing to advance a personal point of view, and not editing neutrally, I'm leaving you a notice of the discretionary sanctions below. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@EdJohnston: Point well taken, complex topic, hence grip of sources cannot be assumed. I could clarify if could you please point me where did you find the concerns that I might be editing to advance a personal point of view? Or is it a generic warning? Anycase I think I have tried to stick to WP policies as far as I got to know about it. AB^Talk 21:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@EdJohnston: ABEditWiki broke his promise to you.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi AB, despite all the discussion on the talk page, it appears that you are still misunderstanding the basics. Material sourced to the reliable sources must stay, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not. Your option is to find other sources that contradict it and add their views. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history at Caste system in India shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ABEditWiki reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: ). Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are on 4RR there, and you can be blocked due to edit-warring. I suggest you self-revert and finish the discussion at the article's talk. Entry in block-log does not look awesome. Faizan (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at this AN3 complaint. I am disappointed that you are back at AN3 so soon after the previous report was closed without a block, but with the hope (and seemingly an assurance from you) that you would be more careful in the future. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi AB, i just wanted to express support for your views on the caste system in India. But as per the wikipedia rules, you and I should not make the mistake of assuming ownership of the article. (see WP:OWN.) My point is that your views are the correct views, but since you and i are in a minority amongst the people editing this article we have to bow before the will of the majority while expressing our dissent in the talk page of the article. We should also have confidence about the fact that though we may be in a minority today we will be in the majority in the future because we represent the truth. I would hope that you do not stop editing completely; i can see that you are a genuine scholar and you have a lot to contribute. Soham321 (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

One of the peculiarities of wikipedia editing is that every editor gets to have an equal say in editing an article irrespective of his/her level of scholarship and irrespective of whether they have a detached perspective or are biased/prejudiced. This may seem unfortunate but we have to come to terms with this. Again, i am writing this because i do not want you to get discouraged and stop editing completely. Soham321 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the support @Soham321:. Although I do not subscribe to the view that, a mere simple numerical majority, without regard to discourses, could determine knowledge or for that matter, content of an encyclopedia. I have appealed as seen below. Meanwhile, as @Sitush: suggested in talk page of article, could we try for a rewrite, based on consensus? They suggest a structure in bullet format and adding content later, all on consensus. That would be the best thing to do here is my assumption. Here is a pointer as to what an encyclopedia generally writes about caste system in India.. I request users @Joshua Jonathan: and @Kautilya3: as also @Kenfyre: to the suggestion by Sitush. Cheers. AB^Talk 08:06, 24 June 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

@EdJohnston: I am hereby making a direct appeal to the blocking admin on the following grounds

1.I do think they are best acquainted with the facts of the case 2.I do not think they have understood the issue, rather than through, what they say as a very quick review of the take page discussions of disputed page.

The reasons for unlocking me are

1. I was not disruptive in a substantial sense. Yes I did indulge in violating the 3RR rule. ( Which, in hindsight, could have been avoided and waited support[?} for similar view point editors to come and take appropriate action.) This violation was due to the fact of concerted effort of some of the editors to push a point of view, which in my view, is totally inaccurate and hitherto non existent in the article, with the same emphasis. A particular disputed POV was pushed again to the opening statement, blatantly and I thought this was disruptive for Wikipedia, and I tried my best to avoid such a disruption

1. I asked the POV pushing editors to discuss in talk page

2. Reported the issue to ANI as the editors were multiple in number and I was alone - all I was asking was to maintain the article the way it was with respect to inclusion of disputed content again in the lead and reach a consensus on the talk page.

3. No admin took a view. No editor engaged in discussion. The article was again bearing the disputed content in opening statement as ..fully developed by the British raj..

4. I tried to revert, while appealing in talk page and ANI to discuss first. None replied to me.

I did revert the content, as multiple users, without reaching a consensus was trying to be disruptive in unison. I will not be doing any edit on the disputed content of 'British fully developed caste system' or other wordings of such post-colonial/post-modern scholarship, as it is softened the POV in the article as of now. I do have apprehensions even now, but, I will seek other mechanisms of dispute resolution and will request a sanction on adding further content on the disputed theory to the article unless a consensus is reached by neutral editors.

Of course I will not involve in edit warring, because the primary intention was not disruption but avoiding disruption.

Please see @Sitush: opinion on JJ's behavior in the article talk page. Please take a note of @Soham321: opinion on your take page on the whole issue.

Well, finally I have to add that, I did indulge in edit warring, knowing well that I was risking an edit block. Particulr;y as my ANI reporting was not taken care by any admin. I did ask any of the admin to take any view including one against me but nobody intervened. The POV continued unabated in the article. ( Of course I can say safely now, that it was indeed a POV as the present article does not include ..fully developed by British Raj.. which was my point of reverting.)

Technically I may deserve a block. But substantially? No is my contention.

Well, if you still think, that technically it should be a block, I would agree and accept one week block. But if you think substantially I deserve a block..? Let me know, I need to rework my brains ( at the least for the time I am interacting in WP!) Cheers!

Decline reason:

"Yes I did indulge in violating the 3RR rule" ... in other words, you are asserting the block was valid. Having a go at Sitush is not going to help your cause; your unblock request should be about your behaviour. A week is not forever, so take some time out and see how other editors manage to resolve issues and leave a consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:52, 24 June 2015 (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.

AB^Talk 07:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Ritchie333: Fine that is. Cheers! AB^Talk 18:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

AB, talk page spamming is just as disruptive as edit-warring. The way you are headed will result in a topic ban, as EdJohnston has already indicated. You are welcome to constructively edit the page adding new material, but you will not be allowed to delete sourced material on the grounds that it does not agree with your OR. Please listen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Spamming? I did not spam talk page here. ..constructively edit the page adding new material, but you will not be allowed to delete sourced material on the grounds that it does not agree with your OR. Please listen I did not do any deletion after I was blocked. What are you referring to? You are spreading misinformation. Seems to be threatening or bullying to me. AB^Talk 08:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Twobells:

You may want to go through this talk page.

AB^Talk 15:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @ABEditWiki: your name was mentioned by Soham321 in that you might be interested in a recent attempt to inflict a ban upon me for trying to improve the Caste System in India article. Also, here is a chronology of my attempted edits and of the talk page discussion. I will be opening a rfc in the next few weeks and would like to keep you informed as an interested party, regards. Twobells^t@lk 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to say Hi to you. Are you around? Soham321 (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Little caught up with work, but you guys are doing great work. Of course it is still skewed, but guess we can make it alright. I see Beteille being called a non RS. Hilarious I must say. If you could get, please get a copy of Social stratification ed. by Dipankar Gupta. Will be back soon. Regards AB^Talk 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for giving the reference. I was interested in obtaining the autobiography of Ghurye, but it is unfortunately not available in amazon. Any suggestions on how to get a copy of it? Soham321 (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

As for Beteille, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Dipankar Gupta is a vocal opponent of the idea that castes form a hierarchy. So I am not sure how it will help you guys. Once again, he is a sociologist. The only historical article he wrote (based on the evidence presented by historians) is the one called "From Varna to Jati," which we are already using. I have a draft section on the history of Varna, but that section has been reorganised while I was writing. I am trying to figure out how to integrate my draft with the existing text. I am trying to get more definitive sources for the history of Jati, a book by R. S. Sharma called "Shudras in Ancient India." If any of you have that book, I will be happy to team up. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tremendous amount of ABF!! I meant all of you working on that article including you when I mentioned about good work. Cheers AB^Talk 11:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC) PS: Get a copy of the reference before assuming too much. Hint: It is an edited volume.Reply

I offered to "team up." If you are interested, you can let me know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back!! Hope this time you will edit properly without getting blocked. You are valuable for Wikipedia. Best Luck. Cheers. Human3015 knock knock • 17:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I noticed Talk:Caste system in India#Dubious section 1 ( here in talk page). Archiving bots have no way of identifying what material is a comment that should be archived, and what is intended as a notice that should be retained until it is manually removed. Consider, for example, the boxes at the top of the talk page—it's obvious to us that they are intended to stay there and they should not be archived, but a bot has no way of knowing that. Therefore, archiving bots only archive comments that appear to have a valid signature. The section in question (permalink) had no signature, and that is why it was never archived. It has now been removed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I am giving you a new notice since the old one from June 2015 expires after a year. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a threat to me, and what did I do to get the notice, again ? And could you help me out where was I disruptive or warranted a notice? Yes, a pointer to the 'expiry of notice' clause also would be helpful. Because, as far as I understand, if the notice doesn't mean that I have invloved in disruptive editing, and you have gone again to give a notice in the same talk page where already there exists a notice, it is akin to threatening. AB^Talk 05:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

See WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts for explanation of how DS notices expire after a year. Look for the phrase "in the last twelve months." I noticed your return to editing on the topic of caste due to a post on my talk page. That editor believed that you ought to be notified of DS again, and I agreed. Your comments in that same thread are the kind that put admins on high alert about battleground behavior. It's like waving a red flag saying "I am about to cause trouble". Which is probably not in your best interests, since staying calm would give you more crediblity. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link. That was helpful on DS. Yes, I see that the editor put a message on your talk page, but my query was what did I do ( rather than what he said), so that you agreed to issue a notice. (Questioning the behavior of the admin would not fall under 'the battleground' behavior I assume, to be 'flagged' again!.) Or am I to assume, it is an easy way to threaten editors who would not agree to ones positions wielding all these 'stuff'? As for best interests, believe me, I know what is in my best interest, and for WP, you may know being an admin? Thanks AB^Talk 04:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

You were previously blocked for edit warring on Caste system in India, in June 2015. You have recently returned to editing after an absence of 14 months, and you continue to be interested in the caste system. I believe that is enough justification for me to ensure that you remain aware of the arbitration case that applies to caste. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

User:EdJohnston Please do not forget to mention that blocked by whom. Also I did not get the logic when you say, "..after an absence of 14 months, and you continue to be interested in the caste system... ", so after an absence if a (blocked ) editor returns back to the same topic, is it a sufficient condition to issue a notice? Especially when the previous notice is just there in this same talk page, and you are aware of it? Thanks AB^Talk 05:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Already answered, see above. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

How could that happen, as I asked a query quoting your reply? Time travel? :) Anyways, not to belittle or enrage all of you good people doing yeomen service to humanity, but to pin point some of the issues of that is happening here right under the nose of AGF (no pun). ! AB^Talk 05:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!