User talk:Muvendar

Info boxes

Please stop changing the order in which fields appears in info boxes. Doing so does not alter their appearance in articles. All you're doing is making it difficult for editors to find the relevant fields.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Obi2canibe, I am sorry, didn't intent to do it. Muvendar (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summaries

You are repeatedly using edit summaries such as this. When applied to edits made by me, they are always false. Stop it now, please. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having done some delving today, and bearing in mind messages such as this, I going to be going over your contributions very carefully. There are an awful lot of problematic ones, sorry. You were issued with a sanctions alert on 18 March and yet still you are making poor edits. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sitush. I think you cross the limit. You are doing WP:STALK, which should be done with a good cause and not to take revenge as you now have done. If you have thought that I have made reverts on edits because it was done by you, then I have to say sorry, It was not intended.

I see you have almost made edits on all the articles I have contributed on, and deleting sources indicating that they are "Raj sources". With Raj source, I assume you mean sources from during the British Raj? I don't think those are unreliable sources, but maybe outdated. You should rather replace with newer citations then just delete them, as you have done. I don't understand why you have left out uncited content, but almost only deleted sourced content like you have done in Timeline of the Karavas and Nakkeerar. I will not edit back anything untill I have heard anything from you.

Muvendar (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that almost all articles you edit and which relate to Indic communities will have been edited by me prior to your arrival. Certainly, that would be logical given me interests, length of time contributing to Wikipedia and so on.

You may not believe Raj sources are a problem but that's just tough because consensus has long been that there are indeed a problem. It has been discussed often and in depth.

There is nothing to stop me examining your contributions in depth when there has been a history of disruption and/or lack of "clue". WP:STALK is not some get-out clause for people who are quite often - by design or otherwise - working in a manner contrary to the best interests of the project. If you think otherwise then feel free to find a sympathetic admin. The integrity of the project is paramount and it is well-known that Indic articles lack scrutiny from a large group of experienced, neutral contributors and that this is the reason why they are generally of poor quality. - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, could you specify what you mean with Raj sources? I would also like to get answer on why you have left out uncited content, but almost only deleted what I have edited which are sourced content like you have done in Timeline of the Karavas and Nakkeerar. I will add back what you have deleted with better citation if I find, but I suggest you to also add better citations before deleting them. I think cited content is better than uncited content. Muvendar (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from the Raj era or before. See, for example, discussions at WP:RSN - just searching for Raj should do it. As for what I have or have not deleted, please bear in mind that some things are tagged and that your "sourced content" is not in fact sourced if the citation is to something that is unreliable, which also includes self-published sources.

The burden is not on me to find citations, although I often have done. I suggest you check my edit history and note the various DYKs, GAs, and FAs before demanding that I find citations. I am really not in the mood for an argument. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: I'm sure if User:Muvendar really believes his remarks bear scrutiny, then it is only right to direct him to the correct venue. As to the question of the Raj-era material, this discussion just about sums up the current interpretation the relevant policy. Cheers, — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]