User talk:Odinson878

Hello there

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Untouchability. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Photonsoup (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three Revert Rule

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Photonsoup (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Untouchability. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Photonsoup (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

But why can't I add Original research Why is the untouchability article So biased Why can't we add about Untouchability in other societies Wikipedia is supposed to a neutral unbiased site But all I'm seeing Is biased articles The article stats Untouchability (common;not in India) Hence Information about Other untouchable societies must also be added It's necessary and it's the right thing And I was about to give credit to the original article But you just removed all of it. For what purpose exactly??? Where will I find Original research And why is there a need to do it When The sources and articles are already present on YouTube Our job is to Make sure the article remains Resourceful , unbiased with accurate information and reliable sources And Wikipedia can already provide all of that I have all the valid points To keep my edits What is your justification For vandalising my edits???? Odinson878 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An Edit war isn't a valid excuse Your highness This article needs More work Why are Wikipedia editors so biased and so incompetent Why can't we just dicuss What we can add And Just fix this article as soon as possible Cagots are mentioned in this article This article is about Untouchability(all countries not just India) Information about Other groups is necessary As well as other origins of Caste/untouchability Like Bible, quran etc. Just because you have more power That doesn't mean you are right. Odinson878 (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia, specifically Wikipedia:No original research. I think your idea of mentioning other historical examples isn’t bad at all, but you’re adding things which will never fly here. Photonsoup (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Photonsoup (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why Won't it fly Providing a valid reason Why???? Whyyyyyy?????? The references aren't from My sites Those references are from other Wikipedia supported valid sites Which Wikipedia constantly reccomends It's Wikipedia denying it's own content. And why is that? I mean the cagots article is valid The sources are valid All other untouchable group articles are also valid with adequate info Why can we use Info from those articles and put it here? Odinson878 (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article stats "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". Cagots article- has original research Is validated by Wikipedia So why can't be added to another Wikipedia article to improve it. Odinson878 (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding huge blocks of improperly cited and/or uncited material, you are overloading talk pages with ... well whatever this is, you are bothering edits who are cleaning up after you. And on Untouchability you copied a huge chunk from Cagot without indicating that you did so--and then you placed some rather random comments on the talk page. None of that is good, and I blocked you temporarily because you weren't stopping even though you were warned. Please read over the comments by the other editors, read our policies and guidelines, and come back in 31 hours with a better sense of what Wikipedia is--and what it isn't. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— DaxServer (t · c) 17:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— DaxServer (t · c) 15:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civility on talkpages

You are too aggressive on talkpages, Odinson828. Just one example, here, where you accuse a fellow editor of vandalizing every Indian page and adding horrible stereotypes about Indian people. Please read Wikipedia:Civility, which is policy. The other editor has been nothing but polite towards you, as far as I can see. You may be blocked from editing if you continue to post baseless accusations of "vandalism" and the like. Bishonen | tålk 21:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

He hasn't been polite Or non biased. That is certain. I don't find any Country s article with so negative info. Caste and untoucability aren't even supposed to be mentioned in India article s front page. I don't see England s page being filled with colonialism or apartheid And I don't see the Germany page filled with nazi ideas. Odinson878 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think caste is not of relevance to India today, you should see the droves of caste warriors that come to Wikipedia to edit our articles to promote their own caste and denigrate other castes. There are no colonialism/apartheid or nazi warriors infesting English or German pages to promote their views, because those things are in the past. Caste certainly should be, too, I wish it was, but it clearly isn't. And how does that have anything to do with Fowler&fowler's politeness? Don't make such accusations without providing evidence. You'll notice I did. Now please give examples of him being impolite. (As for the "biased", it refers to political differences between the two of you; F&f might as reasonably think you biased. The difference is, he gives academic sources for his statements.) Bishonen | tålk 08:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

"There are no colonialism/apartheid or nazi warriors infesting English or German pages to promote their views, because those things are in the past. Caste certainly should be, too, I wish it was, but it clearly isn't" That's a horrible lie Modern forms of black racism is Still followed in America. It's plagued by it. Why do people forget that? The claim that nazis don't exist? Then what are neo nazis. First fact The historic caste system is long dead It's declared illegal Of course there are many illegal practices that are still carried out. That's why it should be mentioned in modern problems Like gender inequality etc. The historic part of that has no relevance especially in a modern India article. You don't find the history of apartheid on the America article or nazis on German article. Yes! They are gone but they still exist illegally 90% of Indians have left casteism The 10% is still a huge number In 100 millions But it's mostly illegal Just like racism and extremism So I don't understand If you won't add negative history to other articles Especially on the front page of those articles; Then why is India being dragged into this???? And this has nothing to do with Fowler and Fowler s Politeness? Well that is true! So why did he vandalise the mauryan empire article by removing the maximum extent of the map, and claiming that mauryans didn't invent much. All academic sources should be mentioned but he just allowed that vandalisation because he thought it was right! Yes it has nothing to do with this article I'm just starting an example. So can you please look into this India article issue thoroughly Odinson878 (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to indent your posts in conversations like other users do, with colons. It will be easier if you don't start every few words on a new line. Since you dig down and attack Fowler&fowler again after my explicit warning, you have been blocked for 36 hours. Don't post baseless accusations of "vandalism". If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 20:18, 4 March 2022 (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).

Odinson878 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I honestly don't care;@bishonen.I wrote an extremely long paragraph trying to explain what is wrong with the wikipedia article and you just straight up stopped at Fowler &fowler without reading my comment and just blocked me ;even though I explained myself as much as icould.Wikipedia already seems biased,why can't you read my other points.i get that i shouldnt really include fowler&fowler ;but my other reasons are still relevant;and I didn't attack anyone it's just an online post .It isn't harming anyone.You could have debunked my points or at least trying to explain what's wrong(not my comment but my points, the reasons why you think I can't remove the caste references)rather than blocking me.it didn't help in anyway and it probably won't help you either.Odinson878 (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for "persistent personal attacks" but don't address this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2022 (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.

March 2022

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]