User talk:Khufiya Vibhaag

July 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Uttar Pradesh has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Uttar Pradesh was changed by Khufiya Vibhaag (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.874029 on 2014-07-15T20:00:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khufiya Vibhaag, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Khufiya Vibhaag! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the code of conduct must be strictly adhered to by everyone equally. Khufiya Vibhaag (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Khufiya Vibhaag, 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 to the page Uttar Pradesh 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. Additionally, 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! 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Sitush (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Kayastha. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Kayastha. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Kayastha 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. 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yeah, you need to stop the "racist pig" stuff now. I've really got to go to bed but if you want to respond to recent reverts etc at Talk:Kayastha then I promise you that I'll respond tomorrow. The world and Wikipedia will still be around then (hopefully!). You can't really continue what you are doing without discussing it properly, which is what talk pages are for. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have now broken WP:3RR. Either revert your last change or you will be reported. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks, edit warring on Kayastha. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a week for edit warring despite warnings to stop, and for inexcusable personal attacks - in no way, shape or form is calling other editors "racist pigs" acceptable behaviour. Hopefully you will take the time to re-evaluate your behaviour. I recommend that you read our policies on 3RR and edit warring, no personal attacks and civility while your block is in place. —Dark 11:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care if you block me for stating a known fact, a racist pig will remain so even if he is called so or not. Jo harami ke pilley baar baar cheezen delte kar de rahe hain unko block karo suar ki aulaad. And I can see that there is a particular propaganda that is being promoted on the said page why else would they delete the names of the giver of the Hare Krishna Movement-ISKCON(Swami Prabhupada), Transcendental Meditation(Maharshi Mahesh Yogi), Integral yoga(Sri Aurobindo), Kriya Yoga(Paramahansa Yogananda of ‘Autobiography of a Yogi’ fame) and Vedanta(Swami Vivekananda), who all were Kayastha by birth.

And what about laws of natural justice? who the fuck is going to give me a chance to present my defense before blocking me. Never mind u probably are a downtrodden commoner of the British suburbs who has not heard of such laws. Google them at least you ignorant scurvy dog. By the way I know you guys have developed low self confidence and inferiority complex due to the abuses inflicted upon you by the nobility but don't try to take it out on us you loser dog, learn something from your American cousins, they at least have some respect for other man's dignity and that makes their citizens whether black or blue fight for the preservation of their country and constitution.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was given no chance to put up my defense as per the principles of natural justice.

Decline reason:

Referring to another editor as a racist pig is not defensible in Wikipedia. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:38, 26 July 2014 (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.

(talk page stalker)Vivekananda was already mentioned, with a source. Instead of insulting other editors, you might at least try to read what's already there, and provide sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua_Jonathan....I have read it brother, what about the rest of the holy-men? Buddha was as much Indian as these and I would fight back equally hard if some unholy evil spirit insulted him on false grounds. Enlightened men need to be respected. I think you are one of the pious ones brother, just look at the unprovoked changes made on the said page and tell me if you would stand some unholy bastard playing with the sentiments of a huge number of people by calling their history, lineage and work of knowledge as irrelevant. I am no bigot but I have self respect and dignity. I am not fighting for religious extremism, in fact far from it, I am fighting for my right to present an objective picture of the matter, with both sides equally represented. Just look at my contributions before these (all secular and positive), I was not even a contributor to the said page but when I saw blatant stupidity by Melotown I had to jump in. Its our joint responsibility to keep a level of decency and if one guy breaks it, I aint no saint to present the other cheek.

Pigs and now dogs? FWIW, I for one am a Brit but I'm not downtrodden and I am bipedal. I don't think that any of the others with whom you have been edit warring are British but I'm fairly sure that they, too, are bipedal. If not then Doctor Doolittle must be acting as their editing intermediary ;)

@Brit guy... good one. The comment was not a generalization for all brits. I speak English and you can very well understand that I respect the Queen and all; but the losers who think that a guy with darker skin can easily be a target need to review their thinking and meet a shrink to clean their messed up inferiority-complex filled sub-conscious :) and being a bipedal you ought to learn to sign your name after edits :)

More seriously, Khufiya, you did have some warnings and you really need to read WP:NOTTHEM. Continuing to insult people is not going to advance your case. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law ― Martin Luther King Jr.

That may well be true, and certainly the quote is accurate, but we are talking here not about the law but about Wikipedia policy. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Martin Luther King knew what language to use. Or, to take another example: Dutch foreign affairs minister Frans Timmermans. He knows that offending the parties who downed MH17 won't help our case - what's more, you may even ask what difference it will make if the guy who pulled the trigger gets jailed. And the Buddha didn't call people "pigs", nor did Vivekananda

Regarding your feeling of propaganda: I've noticed that a lot of Indians are hot-tempered when their identities, be it Indian, Brahmanic, Buddhist, whatever, are being threatened, or when they feel it to be so. It makes me weary of Indians, now and then. But it also makes me realise that India is probably a very tough society, in many respects incomparable to the very orderly and protected western societies. That makes those reactions somehow understandable to me. Nevertheless, if you want to make a point here at Wikipedia, arguments count, not how tough you are. "We" won't attack you physically not verbally, nor will we abuse any of your loved ones. We just want arguments. And most of "us" are not here to downplay other editors, nor their beliefs or social background. So, please, try to stay calm, and simply start searching for sources. If you need help, you can ask me; I'll try what I can do. But just don't let your behavior be controlled by anger and resentment. None of the gurus and holy men you've mentioned would encourage that, would they? Take care, and all the best to you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Joshua Jonathan. Very well said, indeed. Khufiya, please understand that the only way to arrive at consensus is justifying your point through logical arguments. An editor may disagree with you, you need to explain your point; abusing the editor is neither acceptable, nor going to help you. Even, Sitush had promised to reply back if you discuss. If you can justify your point, others like Joshua said, will help you as well. Stay calm; stop abusing, start discussing. And this is applicable to any other article as well. Rather, I would suggest you to behave politely with other editors irrespective of whether they agree or disagree with you. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khufiya Vibhaag, make sure that caste has to do nothing with the race when you refer somebody on a caste article as racist pig, it is based upon the profession at most and now legally certified. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]