User talk:Blueyarn

Welcome

Hello Blueyarn, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Blueyarn, good luck, and have fun. – War Minister (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But why my name is appearing in red color ?

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, 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 ( or ) 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. --SineBot (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your information. Blueyarn (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

I am glad to see you using the citation templates such as {{cite book}}, but please learn to use them properly. By improper use, you render the citations less useful than if you had not used the templates at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your information. But I believe I have dome same. Blueyarn (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "I believe I have dome same", I understand you to be saying that you believe that you have used the citation templates correctly. In this belief, you are wrong. For one example, You used the cite book template as follows:

{{cite book|last=Lele|first=Ed. by Jayant|title=Tradition and modernity in Bhakti movements|year=1981|publisher=Brill|location=Leiden|isbn=9004063706|page=29|url=http://books.google.co.in/books?id=kLs3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA29&dq=%22MAHAR%22+%22NIRMALA%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_kLBUdW6GcqzrgfG64HYBQ&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=banka&f=false}}

which produced a citation that looked like this:

Lele, Ed. by Jayant (1981). Tradition and modernity in Bhakti movements. Leiden: Brill. p. 29. ISBN 9004063706.

The proper use of the template is:

{{cite book|last=Ghokale-Turner|first=Jayashree B.|chapter=Bakhti or Vidroha: Continuity and Change in Dalit Sahitya|editor-last=Lele|editor-first=Jayant|title=Tradition and modernity in Bhakti movements|year=1981|publisher=Brill|location=Leiden|isbn=9004063706|page=29}}

which produces:

Ghokale-Turner, Jayashree B. (1981). "Bakhti or Vidroha: Continuity and Change in Dalit Sahitya". In Lele, Jayant (ed.). Tradition and modernity in Bhakti movements. Leiden: Brill. p. 29. ISBN 9004063706.

Note that in your version, the author is listed as "Lele, Edited by Jayant", where as the proper author citation is "Ghokale-Turner, Jayashree B.", with an editor citation of "Lele, Jayant". Admittedly, this requires a bit more research to find out what author actually wrote the chapter in a book such as Lele's, but doing so gives proper attribution to the facts being presented. Also, it is generally not useful to provide a URL to the specific Google Books search result. The ISBN is sufficient; readers can find and verify the content of the citation using Google, or any other method (including finding the book at a library!)

--WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sant Banka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Untouchable

Sant Nirmala (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Untouchable

Sant Soyarabai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Untouchable

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (talk),

I have fixed those links. Thanks Blueyarn (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image for Mahar?

Might you be of help finding any old British publications with historical images of the Mahar? These are generally old enough to be out of copyright (or published in India, where to my understanding pre-1947 items are free), so they give a great way to visualise the history of a community. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I feel this image is better. Can you please add this image if you like?Blueyarn (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mahar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gujrat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Your addition to B. R. Ambedkar has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at B. R. Ambedkar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 10:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please will you stop reinstating someone's opinion, derived from a magazine. It doesn't even make any sense in English but the bigger issue is one of weight, especially in a lead section. If you want to reinstate it again then please take it to the article talk page instead. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've now reinstated the copyright violation regarding the Manusmriti and Hindu psyche - you are on very thin ice here. - Sitush (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have written what source says. I am not writing anything unreliable.Blueyarn (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. Honestly, the legal implications are considerable and Wikipedia simply cannot tolerate insertion of copyrighted material in the way that you have been doing. Do it again and you will be looking at a block from contributing here. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of B. R. Ambedkar for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suggest you review WP:RS during these 24 hours, as I'm concerned that some of those sources you added do not meet those guidelines. Finally, I mean this without any disrespect, but Sitush was correct when he stated that your grammar on some of those sentence was so wrong that it made the sentence incomprehensible. It's nice if other editors help fix your grammar, but I don't think Sitush could have done that here, since it wasn't even possible to guess what you intended. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Blueyarn (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:25, 18 July 2013 (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.

Deleting whole sourced content by Sitush was absolutely wrong. I have always sourced my content. Sitush not only deleted grammatical content but opposed the whole sentence without discussing.Please check the my edits again. There could be grammatical mistakes but deleting whole content is wrong. I would be happy if you could see the content properly. Blueyarn (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about this, Blueyarn. I did ask you to discuss the ungrammatical addition on the article talk page but you continued to reinstate that and the copyvio without inviting input from others who might have an opinion. I am convinced that particular opinion piece, from a weekly news-type magazine, is not worth noting in the lead even if the grammar were fixed (there are plenty of academics who have an opinion about the guy). If it was purely a grammar issue then, yes, I would have fixed it. Merely reinstating also reintroduced another bit of nonsense that someone else had added at some point: that is something you have to be careful about if you revert someone. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush - I never opposed your grammatical corrections. why you deleted whole sourced sections that I added? Blueyarn (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm Rmosler2100. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Namaste, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Rmosler | ● 23:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Namaste

Thank you for being WP:BOLD. You removed half of the content from the page. Both Basemetal and I have objected to the changes. Please discuss the proposed changes on the talk page for namaste. If you feel the sources are poor, then discuss this on the talk page. Rmosler | ● 23:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parashurama

I reverted you on Parashurama- there is a citation of the Mahabharata there, though the specific translation isn't identified... It would require some digging to identify the specific translation but it should be possible to confirm if the general outline is correct. --Spasemunki (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on talk page of Parashurama -- Blueyarn (talk)

Your removals

How are you choosing what unsourced content to remove or are you doing so indiscriminately? Are you looking for sources before removal? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on specific talk page -- Blueyarn (talk)

Yes, I've read your replies which mostly boil down to "no sources". Please read WP:PRESERVE and see if that affects your thinking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on specific talk page -- Blueyarn (talk)

Well that's unhelpful. And please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ so a timestamp is included. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chitpavan. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.

Read the article talk page and think. You have a bit of history of pro-Mahar POV pushing and need to be careful here. Sitush (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions regime

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 that 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.

- Sitush (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Blueyarn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bhagu for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bhagu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhagu until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Grumpylawnchair (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]