User talk:Axtramedium

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Gurjara-Pratihara, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2015 (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/South Asian social groups.

—SpacemanSpiff 08:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced additions

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gurjar, 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. - Arjayay (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Gurjara-Pratihara. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told before, you can see that the changes you made had been reverted by more than one person, and you do know about talk pages. In addition, you have previously been informed of the special sanctions regime that exists for articles such as this. You are going to find yourself subjected to those sanctions unless you stop acting against consensus. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: Excuse me? Its the other editor who has not explained his edit, AT ALL, not me. I clearly supported my previous edit with reliable sources on the Talk page, as well as this edit. I explained this edit on the talk page, BEFORE I MADE THIS EDIT. I sense you have a clear personal bias against me on this issue. So I would advise you to not threaten me with baseless accusations. Axtramedium (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you said on the talk page - that's why I pointed out that you are obviously aware of it. Merely making a statement on that page does not give you the right to overturn long-standing material in the article itself. You need to get agreement to do so. I doubt that you will because I'm fairly sure it has been discussed several times in the past. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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. Bishonen | talk 19:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: here we go again, it seems. Yet another salvo in the ongoing campaign by Axtramedium to force through changes to the Gurjara-Pratihara article. It's a shoot-first-ask-questions-later scenario, despite the numerous warnings and explanations above. See this latest attempt to change the etymology section (reverted by me) and the revived discussion thread here that began around a year ago and has rumbled on ever since.

Axtramedium, can you please confirm that you understand WP:BRD. Your repeated attempts to force through changes to the article itself, basically making the same point each time, and then engaging in tendentious discussion when reverted amounts to a breach of that convention. - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, you have been accusing and threatening from the get go. I have only edited the article directly once or twice, and each time I have made discussed the changes on the talk page before I made them directly on the main article. You are simply lying when you accuse me of "shoot-first-ask-questions-later" attitude. Even regarding the last edit, I have taken every care to take into account everything I have discussed at length on the talk page. I asked you to list your objections, and so far in your three replies, you still have to point out what improvement are you making to the article by reverting me edits. When I have clearly pointed out to you that there is crucial information that you are leaving out, which is apparent in the very name of the dynasty.

You have said some clearly inflammatory remarks towards the Gujjar community on the talk page, which puts you in the list of biased editors. You have deliberately tried to mute any mention of the word Gujjar on this article, all the while making remarks about them. This is your latest stance in achieving that goal, to try to mute my contribution, which has significantly improved the etymology section of the article. Axtramedium (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:BRD? It is that simple, really. You are effectively a single-purpose account and your repeated attempts to assert a connection between the modern Gurjar caste and the ancient Gurjara people goes beyond what a balanced view of the sources would permit. I am not the only person who has told you this but still you persist in making changes and then rebutting challenges. In a BRD situation, you are supposed to make proposals for changes, gain consensus for them and only then implement. - Sitush (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for you to show any reliable sources which actually contend the connection between the ancient Gurjaras and modern day Gujjars. I can assure you, you will find none. As you have not provided any sources denying my assertions, which I have and can provide sources for, what gives your opinion the upper hand over mine? Your sense of entitlement is bewildering to me Axtramedium (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the article talk page. This has been discussed extensively there by yourself, me, utcursch, Kautilya3 etc. Your talk page is not the place to discuss the minutiae of article sourcing. I commented here on behavioural grounds, not content. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot understand BRd and you persist in tendentious behaviour then there is only one likely outcome for a single-purpose account, ie: you will find yourself topic banned. - Sitush (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to think whatever you think, but I have simply started at the first section of the article. Apparently, your bias is still keeping me there, because it refuses to accept a fundamental fact regarding the historiography of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty. And I AM STILL WAITING for you on the article talk page to come up with any sources which contend my assertions, and I am afraid I have repeatedly told you that I havent found any such source either on the main article, or on the talk page. But you still keep telling me to "go read the page", instead of taking the liberty to actually substantiate your claims by listing those sources, which tells me a lot about your whole stance in the first place. Simply, baseless. Axtramedium (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush doesn't have anything against any community. He is just sick and tired of the POV pushers trying to glorify their own communities. My response to the current exchange is here. I don't think your new version is any improvement. It is overweight on "Gurjara" but downplays the "Pratihara," which is supposed to be the real name of the dynasty. It is also clear that your only interest is in the etymology section of this article, and the "Gurjara" part of the etymology section. You keep coming back every few months with the same old POV pushing. I would support a page ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So two friends have decided to gang up on me in hopes of censoring an opinion which is clearly against their wishes, what a surprise. You guys are certainly amusing because of your childish efforts to put a display of "consensus" against me. Let me remind you guys, we are not the scholars and authors who get to decide this, the academic community has already divided itself along two broad lines, and we simply have to report that. Whether today you guys will let me to that or not is irrelevant. Axtramedium (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may as well add what the etymology section looked like before I edited it, and how it looks after I have edited it. I will leave it to the unbiased readers of this page to decide which one is more informative for the readers, given that is the purpose of Wikipedia. Before my edit. After my edit. Axtramedium (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do anything with the Etymology section, you need to keep it extremely brief, and say nothing about the origins, which is covered in a separate section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are such lowly cowards, you cant stand alone, need five with you to make one man. Typical Rajputs. I am out of here. Axtramedium (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a Rajput. I'm not even of Indian descent. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You have inserted a revised version of the edit you proposed here in July 2015, despite failing to get consensus for it (or indeed to get any agreement at all). Editing boldly is one thing, but pushing through your preferred version after there's consensus against it is quite different; it's disruptive and timewasting. Please work with others in a respectful way (there's nothing respectful about your most recent posts, on the article talkpage or here), don't make accusations without diffs such as, to Sitush, "You have said some clearly inflammatory remarks towards the Gujjar community on the talk page, which puts you in the list of biased editors";[1] without evidence, that's a pure personal attack. Don't make unreasonable demands on their time, and do follow our policies, or you will be topic banned from Gurjara-Pratihara and related pages. Bishonen | talk 11:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I am sorry my respect is reserved for the people who deserve it, not one sided people like Sitush and Kautilya. And the fact that you have supported them undeservedly puts in the same line of losers. Good bye, enjoy your high horse you piece of shit. Axtramedium (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Undeservedly"? Well, thank you for that, at least. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from Gurjara-Pratihara and related pages. Please click on the "topic banned" link to make sure you understand what it means.

You have been sanctioned because your disruption of Gurjara-Pratihara and its talkpage needs to stop. Your response above to a civil warning about it shows you have no intention of complying with Wikipedia's rules nor of interacting respectfully with other users.

This sanction 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. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]