User talk:HistoryofKushwaha

Welcome

Hello, HistoryofKushwaha, 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 edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to 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. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

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! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kushwaha with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kushwaha with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kushwaha shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. I realise you won't know about this, hence the warning Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kushwaha into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the posts above

Communication here is vital and we expect editors to communicate in various ways. Edit summaries are one of them and should be used to explain each edit and as above to note if text is copied from another article, using a wikilink.

You also seem to have copied something directly from at least one webpage. Can you please explain that? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kushwaha, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sitush (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked before to provide sources for your statements at Kushwaha and you have been provided with information related to those requests. What is it that you are not understanding? - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to look into having you blocked from editing so that you can catch your breath and have a think about your approach. Your continued battleground approach at Kushwaha is against our policies regarding both consensus and neutrality. You have to stop doing this and talk it through. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kushwaha shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Sitush (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shows how scared you are any how,as you stated earlier I edited with putting a ref over there even then you responded as usual ...Kushawaha belongs to Kshatriya community and I had given you ref as well. Please concern Hindu granths as well to understand all 4 varnas before writing any shit about any community.

Kindly pay attention dont just misuse your power to stop someone unethically.

I have already used the source that you were trying to add. The problem is that you have not read that source correctly or indeed are deliberately trying to misrepresent it. We do not need this style of contribution here. As for my "powers" - I have none of note. It will not be me, for example, who blocks you from contributing: that decision will be made by others, based on our long-standing policies and guidelines to which you have been repeatedly referred. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google snippets

Please never use snippets. They are just a few words without the context we'd usually need to make sure what they say, and they show that you haven't read the source. Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, they had linked to the full page version when they added links to my talk page etc. It was only in the article that the snippet view was used (that was unacceptable, yes, but I think that they have had the opportunity at least to read the source more fully). - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good you git it.Please understood Varna and cast then write any thing about any community.Do some research work and then write here.User talk:HistoryofKushwaha

Thanks Sitush. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HoK, might I suggest that you check out some of my past edits on India-related articles before you start telling me what I should do? You may be surprised at how much I do in fact know about the general subject area of caste and the manner in which we treat it here on Wikipedia. I am not always correct but you appear to be making some very big assumptions here, and you are wrong. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

== Kushwaha, again ==

I have reverted you again at Kushwaha. Please can you discuss your proposed edits on the talk page for that article. This situation is becoming silly and whilst you may have a point there is no way that it can be understood in the limited space provided by the edit summaries. You are aware that there is an ongoing discussion about the entire issue on that talk page - we are not even sure what the subject matter of the article is intended to be. Your views would be appreciated there. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush

Love to have a discussion on this but please dont change the Kushwaha page untill we reach on some conclusion.

Its a kind request to you. HOK

If you suggest I can share my chat id or email to discuss further. Thanks, HOK

Your recent editing history at Kushwaha shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Sitush (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush Your recent editing history at Kushwaha shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors.

I believe its applicable to you as well. As you are deleting my post without considering references. Lets discuss don't indulge in edit war. Its not a tall personal so kindly be sensible and sincere. HOK 8:02 February 2012 (IST)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Edit warring on Kushwaha, POV pushing, and general disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot remove block notices from your talk page while you are blocked. It has been restored, don't remove it again. --B music ian 02:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is being biased

Even after giving references for Kushwaha ... some old folks manipulating information with their own interpretation. Old members publishing information with biased emotions and neglecting information regarding truth. Presentation of right information is so biased by these old members.

I had been blocked to contribute truth with Wikipedia. History repeated itself ..... way back some scholars with intention to provide benefit few people created/wrote completely biased scripts.

If anyone cares ... ask for references.. will provide you to prove truth.

reg...., HOK — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofKushwaha (talk • contribs)

No, you were blocked for your behaviour as described above. I don't expect you to be able to accept this, but that's what happened. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting and pasting of versions of articles to your talk page is not allowed (see WP:FAKEARTICLE). This talk page is to communicate with other editors or, as in this case, place an unblock request. If you cannot abide by the guidelines (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines), I will have to revoke your talk page privileges. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new !!!! You deleted my comments again. Wikipedia has become private property of few sarcastic editors. Those, who are publishing information with their own interpretation. They are manipulating information with their own preconception . I started contributing a month before in Wikipedia and learned how new contributors being chopped by these few old folks so called Editors.

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).

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

Request reason:

got to know how to discuss

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. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:59, 21 February 2012 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

understood what I have been blocked for and will make useful contributions

Decline reason:

Please re-read WP:GAB. There is nothing on this page, nor in this unblock that shows us that you understand why you were blocked (be specific), or is proving to us that it won't happen again (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 24 February 2012 (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.

I would personally decline this unblock request, but I'm going to give you a chance to amend it. Frankly, given some of your commentary here, a vague "I get it" is insufficient to justify an unblock. What specifically do you understand was inappropriate about your edits, and how do you intend to avoid repeating these issues? --Kinu ^t/_c 22:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Understood the reason for what I have been blocked. As I was new to Wikipedia it took some to understand it's principals. Now I am aware of how to contribute information here and will not do disruptive editing. From now on-wards I will edit article with proper reference and will add a reference for sure. I will use talk page to discuss my opinion with others. Thanks

Accept reason:

I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I hope you understand you are on a tight leash, and next time there will be no unblocking. Happy editing, and please abide by the guidelines. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ThanksHistoryofKushwaha 21:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)