Jump to content

User talk:Soham321/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Use

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Eraly

Where is Eraly available in its entirety online? Certainly not at Google Books in the US or UK, nor at Amazon, DSAL and a few other regular "go to's". - Sitush (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

See here Eraly Soham321 (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
See User:Sitush/Common#GBooks. - Sitush (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Soham321 (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Babur

Can you please read WP:OVERLINK. Some of the stuff here isn't necessary. We usually only use links on the first occurrence of the word/term. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

ok. will keep this in mind.Soham321 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bhupendra Chaubey

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bhupendra Chaubey, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Babur 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions 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.


What are you doing at Babur? You are adding content that often is not relevant and that has been copied verbatim from books, eg: from this page. The hope is that the article can be brought up to Good Article standard but instead you are taking it further away. Sitush (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to paraphrase and summarize to the extent possible while always giving the references, and recognizing that wikipedia articles are not the place for original research. Perhaps my edits could be paraphrased or summarized more adequately, but i challenge you to give a single edit where i have quoted verbatim from anywhere. This challenge applies even to the reference you have given. Could you please stop with the intimidation and start practicing more polite collaboration? In case you haven't noticed, i am not a newbie anymore.Soham321 (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Bhupendra Chaubey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bhupendra Chaubey 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/Bhupendra Chaubey (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Information icon Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Compassionate727 (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the point of including edit summaries in ANI discussions. Sorry. I do agree that edit summaries should ordinarily be given when editing any wikipedia article and normally i do give them. Sometimes if it is a question of adding a quote or comma or something small then i may not give it, but usually even here i do so. Sometimes i may not give the edit summary inadvertently. But for important edits i have been known to revert my own edit just so that i could put it back up again with the appropriate edit summary. Soham321 (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The only thing that comes to mind is that it helps recent changes patrollers like me decide whether or not we need to check and see if the edit was vandalism. Compassionate727 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Caste system in India. 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. 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. Sitush (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Your past history of assuming ownership of any article on which you are editing means these warnings of yours have no legitimacy. Your edit is completely nonsensical having no basis on facts. The caste system was not a creation of the British as you are falsely claiming in your edit; there are several mentions and descriptions of the caste system in ancient and medieval India. Your claim that i am stalking you (you made this claim in an edit summary of the main article) is laughable considering that you started editing certain wikipedia pages immediately after i started editing them. I refer now to Daily News and Analysis page and the Open magazine page. Your zeal to try and have the last word on India related pages is particularly amusing considering you have a poor opinion of Indians as reflected by one of your earlier posts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=666714511 Soham321 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

ARBIPA notification

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 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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I just want to add the above ARBIPA notice is something you need to take serious. That allows any admin to unilaterally enforce a buffet of restrictions that we normally can't do. This includes topic banning your or blocking you. The authority is quite sweeping and the trigger is quite low on these particular topics that have been problem areas for years. You obviously feel strongly about the whole caste subject, but you are a minority on it so far. You need to use the talk page and present your information in a non-confrontational way to win over supporters. Hammering them won't work, and might be seen as disruptive. I tell you this to give you the best chance to avoid sanction, and to at least be able to present your case, but you have to do so in a inoffensive way, or it won't happen at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you have to give this at least a few days to play out. Let the other editors who are interested in this article be given an opportunity to voice their opinion. One editor had originally placed the tag of factual inaccuracy on the article, another had deleted the disputed material on three occasions, and a third has argued and edit warred with Sitush on article which deals with a similar issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hope_Risley). Incidentally, i told this third editor (Kenfyre) on his talk page to take a look at content of the main article and talk page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India I am surprised that this is being held against me in ANI as if i was canvassing. Surely canvassing is permitted if it is a content dispute. Soham321 (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Canvassing isn't really allowed, but a singular notification is hardly anything to get excited about. Really, it isn't about me. I'm pretty patient, probably too patient. Right now another admin (and likely others) are looking at your edits and racially charged comments. Your smartest move would be to remove the tag, go to ANI and pledge you will keep it on the talk page and try to develop a consensus and work with others. Really, that is what we are here to do. You win some, you lose some. I have 50k edits, adminship, etc, but I still am in the minority from time to time when editing, and you know what? I suck it up and just accept it. We all have the same "rank" when it comes to editing, and while it isn't "majority rules", consensus is kind of like that, right or wrong. It is simply how the place works. Some people can't work with that, so they get blocked or topic banned. You need to demonstrate you can, or that will end up being your fate. Not so much by my hand, but by one of the 1600 other admins out there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
If you can acknowledge and show some signs of acting on the advice above I'd definitely be willing to give you a bit more leeway. This is a topic which attracts a lot of problems with relatively few people attempting to fix them, so admins are generally very heavy-handed because it's hard to keep a lid on things. If you can take the above feedback on board it shouldn't come to that, but persisting the way things have been going will definitely lead to sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed the tag from the main article and i made a note of this in the ANI discussion (and also in the edit summary in the main article) with the comment that the discussion is continuing in the talk page of the article. What else am i supposed to do now? Just look at my recent edits on the talk page of the article and reflect on whether i am contributing to making the main article better or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Caste_system_in_India Soham321 (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
You're moving in the right direction. I think the next best move is go and discuss, but to stick to the facts, and as I said before, drop the hyperbole. Using phrases like "lunatic fringe" and talking about the race of the sources is asking for problems (and sanction). Stick to the facts. Right now, you are the only person with your point of view, so being obnoxious isn't a good tactic anyway, nor is bolding quotes. Honestly, they have been giving you good advice on that talk page, use it, and start treating everyone there as an EQUAL, even if you disagree with them. They ARE equals. Most importantly, keep it calm. It doesn't matter how "right" you think you are, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If you can't get along with others in controversial topic areas, you tend to get removed. As Blade noted, admin are very heavy handed in India related topics but with good reason, and with the blessing of Arb Com and the community. Lastly, I'm not sure of your nationality, but here in the US we have an expression: "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Your current methods are off-putting and aren't getting others to even consider your ideas. You don't win converts by telling others that their current beliefs are "lunatic". Tone it back a few notches and engage others instead of being so aggressive; ask more and tell less. Give them a chance to be persuaded, and if they aren't, then you just have to accept it. That is core to the ideals of collaboration and consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, if you think Soham is moving in the right direction, please look again. They are being incredible tendentious and disruptive, and not all of it can be ascribed to being new (partly because they are not, and partly because it has been explained to them but they continue to ignore). This is the sort of behaviour that puts people of editing caste-related articles: walls and walls of irrelevant text and repetition. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to issue one last final warning on this matter. Soham, I'm not as familiar with this subject as Sitush but even I can see that the edits laid out on my talkpage are patently disruptive. I would strongly recommend you find another topic to edit before I or another admin topic bans you and effectively forces you to do so. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome to ban me or block me. That is your prerogative as an Admin. I am also free to exercise my right to appeal your decision because you are being unreasonable now in my opinion. I did not respond to Sitush's provocative edit on my talk page, which was written after our interaction on your talk page, and the record shows i have been attempting to build consensus on the talk page of Caste system in India as per this diff: diff1. Furthermore, i have confined my comments to the talk page of the article and have not made a single edit on the main article after receiving a warning. So feel free to ban me or block me, but i will not be told not to even make comments on the talk page of an article, particularly since it was after my comments that certain tags were placed on the main article by other posters and since the record shows i have attempted to build some kind of a consensus on the talk page. Soham321 (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Soham321, you are bludgeoning the issue, saying the same things over and over. You started with a couple of good moves, proper tagging, but you still don't get it. I tried to jump in to give you a day or two to get your act together, but it seems it was wasted time. If you keep beating this dead horse with the same rhetoric, I would support a block of at least one month under discretionary sanctions. Or give it myself. A topic ban would be too much work for the system. And while you are correct in that you can appeal, history has shown that it will fall on deaf ears. The community is sick of the headaches and willing to support strong moves by admin in these Arb related cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I have followed your instruction not to make any edits on the main article. But i am unable to follow any instruction to the effect that i should not make any contribution to the talk page of the article since in my opinion my contributions have been positive. In fact the tags that are being seen on the main article now were placed after my comments on the talk page. Since you seem to have made up your mind, please block me but also let me know how i can take up this matter to the Arbitration Committee after i have been blocked. There have been several allegations in the past of Sitush getting editors who not agree with Sitush blocked or banned by repeatedly complaining to Admins (because Sitush is on friendly terms with many Admins), and many people have protested about this in the past. The allegation is that this is happening particularly in topics related to the Indian caste system. I will take this matter up with ArbCom, and i will give them the supporting diffs. I understand that Sitush has already received a warning from ArbCom in the recent past. Soham321 (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Arb can be found at WP:RFAR but for your own sake, I don't recommend it. And if my mind was made up, you would already be blocked. I'm trying to NOT block you. Like I said, you've made a couple decent moves, but hammering the same points over and over, then sparing with Sitush on another admin's talk page...not good ideas. Again, stick to the facts, or better yet, take a break from the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:Canvas

This edit is a clear violation of WP:CANVAS. Please self revert and post a neutral message. —SpacemanSpiff 00:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware of the prior history surrounding this, but it appears that you've been amply warned by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs) and Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) already. Switching from one form of disruption to another is also not good. —SpacemanSpiff 00:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I made the edit based on the advice of Dennis Brown (talk · contribs). Please take a look at his talk page. Soham321 (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • When you post a notice, you have to be neutral, you aren't trying to sway opinions in that project post. Just say there is a discussion regarding the source for castes in India, and anyone interested in invited to participate. Don't give your opinions or details, just a notification. If the reader can tell your opinion from the posting, then it isn't neutral. You need to learn to make notices neutral, as Spiff is exactly correct, the way you did it is canvassing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the explanation. Soham321 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste system in India - POV pushing by group of editors

Hi there is a discussion here in ANI, which may be of interest to you. Cheers. ABTalk 16:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You've done a great job on the talk page of the article. My suggestion is that now you should leave it to others (future editors) to fix this issue. I am not sure if its a good idea for me to participate in the ANI because if I do so you could be penalized for canvassing ( see WP:CANVAS). To avoid being penalized you should have referred to me or my posts in the ANI and then left a neutral comment here ( making no mention of any POV pushing on my talk page) saying you have mentioned me at ANI and that is why I should look at the ANI discussion taking place. If anyone brings up the issue of WP:CANVAS in the ANI, tell them the truth: you are new to this place and are not sure how the canvassing rule operates. If I feel my intervention in the ANI is absolutely necessary I shall intervene.Soham321 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Full citations

Hi Soham, you seem to be having trouble adding full citations to articles. Both the WikiEd and the WYSIWYG editors have buttons for adding citations. If you are unable to find them, please let me know and I can help. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Twobells

Twobells is giving you very poor advice and has now removed my correction on their talk page. Please take note of this. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ha! there is a typo in my linked reponse: the word is, of course, administrator. Sorry about that. - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
And to confuse you even more, Twobells has now changed some of the advice that they gave you and have done so after you had replied. You could easily miss seeing those changes, which is why doing things in that manner is usually considered to be bad practice. It might be better in future if you seek advice from someone with more clue, otherwise you could get very confused and if you're planning to continue editing in the caste-related sphere then that could cause you problems in relation to the sanctions that are enforceable.
If you don't know who to turn to, there is always the helpdesk. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I find it rather odd that you found anything noteworthy and 'unusual' in the fact that editors update their work Sitush. Twobellst@lk 10:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not surprised you find it odd. That is because you have fairly consistently demonstrated both cluelessness (remember nominating British Raj for deletion?) and a pugnacious style of contribution. You aren't doing Soham any favours here. I realise that Soham must be smarting from the failure of the appeal etc but ignoring your advice and interjections would be as good a starting point as any. Reinvigorating a thread that is nearly a month old isn't a great idea either - it isn't as if you have been absent in the interval. If you want to duke it out with me, I suggest you do it on my talk page and not here. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
And I see that the issue of your refactoring posts after replies has been mentioned before, although you have just blanked User_talk:Twobells/Archive_1, which is where I found it. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
What on earth are you on about,'duke it out'? Is that how you relate and behave with other editors? You just don't get it do you Sitush? I was in an on-going conversation with Soham and wanted to improve my response to him yet only you seem to have some sort of problem with that and the bigger question is why are you reading my talk history diffs in relation to another editor? Really Sitush, who do you think you are? And why refer to the British Raj article as an example of your so-called 'incompetence'? (anyone notice a pattern emerging here) At that time the article was more about Indian Independence than the British Raj. Also, why should I discuss it on your talk page? You brought me up here so here I respond because for some reason, at the time I did not get the notification that you had (for whatever bizarre reason) decided to discuss me here. As for referring to Soham321's appeal that is unworthy and against best wiki practice, something you seemingly know little about. I also notice that you still seem to in thrall to Pavlov's bell with your reference to other editors 'being incompetent' if they do not agree with your ideology, you must try harder and assume AGF rather than automatically revert to bellicose language in dealing with other editors Sitush. In reference to raising the issue of me editing my own talk page I delete comments and archives every year as stated at the very start of my talk page yet seemingly you seem to think there is some sort of conspiracy at work. Also, what you call 'refactoring' is actually an editor replying to comments so they make sense structurally, all a user has to do is check the history date to understand the chronology yet somehow again you seem to believe there is some sort of conspiracy going on, it's all rather sad. Twobellst@lk 14:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Twobells gave me any advice. Rather, i suggested to him to let me (and two other editors) know when he would be filing the RfC--of course i clarified that i was not certain whether his doing so would constitute canvassing. I also agree with Twobells's criticism about the way the editing on the Caste system in India article has been taking place. Thanks for the link to the helpdesk. Soham321 (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It would constitute canvassing and Twobells did not point that out, despite your query. Their criticism of the editing didn't even relate to the article in question. Anyway, it's up to you: Twobells has been blocked numerous times for edit warring and, amazingly, even tried to get the British Raj article deleted in 2012 - is that the sort of judgement from whom you should be seeking advice? I see it as a short road to a long block, given that the caste sanctions are in force. - Sitush (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Sitush, if Twobells indulges in unallowable canvassing, how am i affected? After all, i am not the person who is doing the canvassing. My assessment of Twobells--from what i have seen of him so far-- is that he is a knowledgeable person who has a lot to contribute to this project. I am also impressed with the editing of Kenfyre; i notice you also have a problem with him. Soham321 (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You queried about canvassing and proposed something that might constitute such; Twobells prima facie accepted your proposal and thereby affirmed that it was not canvassing. I assure you, it would be canvassing and, as their history shows, Twobells hasn't got much clue. Similarly, Kenfyre is confused, as everyone has been telling them in their poorly-phrased RfC.

That you seemingly dislike me is fine. However, agreeing with other people because they also oppose me would not make you right. It is weird odd that you are "impressed" seemingly only by people who disagree with me, regardless of the subject, but please remember that consensus is not a vote. I've seen many situations here where one person has "got their way" despite opposition from many others, simply because the sole person understands policy.

Anyway, I'll leave you to it: you'll likely find out the hard way in due course, if you don't get blocked for one of your many copyright violations beforehand. I'll leave, however, with the notice below because this looks like it might become a problem and in any event you need to be aware for your own sake. I apologise if you have seen it before - I think there is a way to check that without trawling through your talk page history but I'm afraid I can't remember how to do it. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why you would imagine that i dislike you. I am actually quite fond of you. Incidentally, i am deleting the template you posted since its getting in the way of our interaction; if you notice a similar template has been posted earlier by an Admin on my talk page. Soham321 (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush, it is usually good manners to inform someone if they are the subject of a discussion, in order that they might defend their position Sitush, that you failed to, however, does not surprise me. Twobellst@lk 09:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It is standard to link the user name when an editor is mentioned so they are notified per WP:Notifications. That is why Sitush linked your user name in the very fist post in this section. Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, who are you?Twobellst@lk 14:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Adi Shankara and WP:3RR

That's 4 reverts today at Adi Shankara; be a wise man and self-revert. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the warning. Soham321 (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Indent

You can indent your comments by starting a new line with the : sign. Or ad <br> at the end of your previous sentence. Other editors will probably take you more serious when you're able to do such a simple thing.
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The edit you are claiming i did not indent was just a continuation of my own previous edit. I will be indenting my posts in response to another editor, but i shall be continuing to write after my signature if i am just continuing with my edit. Incidentally, i recently wrote a note on the talk page of an ArbCom volunteer (in the recent appeal) who also wrote in the same manner. In other words, he just continued writing after my signature without indenting his response--indicating that this protest that i am not indenting my edit is making a mountain out of a molehill. Soham321 (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

need support

please do delete the speedy contest deletion message from the article and help to make the article in an elegant manner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sridhar_babu_addanki swaroop 07:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakthi swaroop (talk • contribs)

Talk Page Etiquette arbitration case has been declined

This is a courtesy notice to advise that the "Talk Page Etiquette" arbitration case, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined by the committee on account of the fact that it appears to have been withdrawn. Further information is available at the above link. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC).

July 2015

Information icon Hello, I'm Ogress. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Cārvāka that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Do not engage in personal attacks against other authors when you do not agree with them. Your declaration that another editor was a Vedantin and therefore unfit to edit a page is inappropriate at best. Ogress smash! 08:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, I notice your deletion of my edit has already been undone by another editor on the ground that it was not a personal attack which is the truth. In future, if you remove my comments from a talk page without a legitimate reason i shall take you to ANI. Soham321 (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I removed your edit as it was a personal attack, and I will not be bullied by threats of ANI, which you whip out every time you dislike something. Ogress smash! 17:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Ogress, The fact that it was not a personal attack was agreed upon by Mohanbhan who removed your inappropriate revert of my edit. If you continue to indulge in disruptive behavior, what choice do i have other than to take you to ANI? Your claim that i bully and threaten to take people to ANI whenever i disagree with them is not borne by facts. I will say though that my assessment of you is that you have very little to contribute to the encyclopedia in terms of knowledge at least on pages concerning Indian philosophy. You bring very little to the table. Soham321 (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, Soham321, you sure know how not to engage in personal attacks. Ogress smash! 18:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome to consider this a personal attack. It is not. It is my personal view which i am sharing on my personal talk page since you chose to come here uninvited. Soham321 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Treat this as a final warning. You've already been alerted about the Arbcom discretionary sanctions and your behavior across multiple articles and talk pages has been disruptive. If you continue to do so you are likely to be blocked and/or topic banned. —SpacemanSpiff 18:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Arbcom i had interacted with an ArbCom volunteer on his talk page who had agreed that my complaint to ArbCom was an 'error of inexperience' and he would not be holding it against me in future. This is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&diff=669684274&oldid=669683169 By no means of the imagination have i made any personal attack on Ogress as far as i am concerned. If you disagree, and utilize your Admin powers, as you have every right to do, i shall appeal your sanctions against me in the appropriate forum. Soham321 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I am specifically not including any filing of arbcom cases as that is entirely within your right, as also your prerogative to appeal any sanctions. You behavior otherwise is what is under question and can be sanctioned. You've been warned and counseled by multiple editors in the past, yet you don't seem to be reducing the disruptive behavior. I'm asking you to do that. —SpacemanSpiff 18:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
the fact that your claim that my behavior across multiple articles and talk pages has been disruptive is patently false is borne out if you see the history on the Jawaharlal Nehru page. All my edits have been accepted on this page even though this is a very disputed article and even the major political parties in India like the Congress and BJP have commented on the editing of this page in the media. As far as the Charvaka article is concerned there is a genuine difference of opinion as can be seen in the talk page of the article. The editors who have warned me on different pages are those who hold views on the subject which are different from mine. There is a genuine intellectual debate taking place which you are trying to stifle through Admin intervention. In my opinion this is detrimental to the Encyclopedia. Content creators have to be protected by Admins rather than threatened. Soham321 (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette again

Soham, Edits and comments like

  • If you had any sense you would have stayed away from this discussion. [1],
  • Sarah Welch comes across as a Vedantin based on my interaction with her on the talk page of Adi Shankara. [2], and
  • I will say though that my assessment of you is that you have very little to contribute to the encyclopedia in terms of knowledge at least on pages concerning Indian philosophy. You bring very little to the table. [3]

are not ok. As you have been advised before, please be more civil and assume good faith when interacting with other editors on article and user talkpages (including your own); and focus on content and sources instead of speculating about other editors' ideology and motivation. I see that you have already been warned about such disruptive conduct, and been made aware of the potential consequences above and so won't repeat that. I hope you'll make greater efforts to be collaborative in the future.
PS: Feel free to get a second opinion about the above listed comments from any experienced editor/admin that you trust, and in fact I highly encourage you to get a mentor to advice you about editing and talk-page conduct. Abecedare (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

All right, i will try to remain more cool during philosophy discussions. I tend to become passionate in philosophy related discussions. Soham321 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC) This applies to the first two diffs that you gave. I see nothing wrong in the third diff you gave because i was responding to what i considered repeated unwarranted allegations against me (and that too on my talk page) by Ogress that i was making personal attacks on her when i was doing no such thing. Soham321 (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not say you were engaging in personal attacks against me until you said I will say though that my assessment of you is that you have very little to contribute to the encyclopedia in terms of knowledge at least on pages concerning Indian philosophy. You bring very little to the table. I very clearly stated you were making a personal attack against Ms Sarah Welch. Ogress smash! 22:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
My response that you are quoting was after you wrote this:I removed your edit as it was a personal attack, and I will not be bullied by threats of ANI, which you whip out every time you dislike something. You had reverted an edit of mine on the Charvaka talk page on the ground that it constituted a personal attack which i maintain was not a personal attack. Your revert was reverted by another editor (Mohanbhan) who wrote the following words in the edit summary which were addressed to you: It is not a personal attack, he is stating a grievance, do not censor wiki by using strong words Soham321 (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
What "strong words" was I using, exactly, when I said it was a personal attack? Ogress smash! 22:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I will let Mohanbhan speak for himself (if he wishes to) as to why he used the words 'strong words' but this is your exact edit summary (the capitalization of the words was done by you in the edit summary) when you reverted my edit: Deleting personal attack. DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS.

So obviously that means you were justified in belittling me, as you say above, I see nothing wrong in the third diff you gave. I'll keep that in mind. Ogress smash! 23:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for belittling you. Even though you were indulging in behavior which i consider to be provocative i agree that i should have refrained from belittling you. Let us be cordial towards each other and work towards improving the Encyclopedia. Soham321 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Caravaka talkpage request

Would you mind moving your question about DC as a source to the this section? I'd be happy to respond there and that way even editors reading the talkpage 2-3 years down the line will be able to make sense of the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea because I do not want editors reading the page 2-3 years from now to imagine that the sources you are giving are the modern, standard sources and that Chattopadhyaya should not be considered a modern, standard source. You are welcome to give your response in the other section if you wish. Soham321 (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I understand your objection to the request but <shrug>... not a big deal either ways. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Arun Shourie 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions 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.

You have to stop inserting lengthy quotations into articles. We know that you have a history of breaching copyright but simply quoting huge chunks of text is not a way round that problem. Please review WP:COPYRIGHT and, if in doubt, ask. Sitush (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, feel free to take me to the appropriate forum if you feel i have violated copyright. I have not violated copyright; i gave my own paraphrase/summary of the dispute and then i gave a direct quote with the link to the Indian Express article. Soham321 (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you will find that there are several people keeping an eye on you anyway, so the chances are that someone will turn up here to support my opinion. Believe me, you do not want to find yourself at WP:CCI, which is indeed the "correct forum". You will either end up spending the next few weeks doing nothing but checking your own past contributions or you will become so dis-spirited that you will just give up completely. That's the pattern, time and again, and I'd rather try to avoid putting you in that position. You 'cannot just add hundreds of copied characters to an article and assume that by formatting them as quotations they somehow avoid the copyright concerns. Alas, that is what you have been doing across numerous articles. Quotes certainly have a function here but your judgement is way off-course. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your opinion with me. Soham321 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Kautilya3 has given you a goldfish! Goldfish promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day much better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a goldfish, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks for all your efforts in adding to the Jawaharlal Nehru page, especially the new Nehru and Science section.

Give someone a goldfish by adding {{subst:Goldfish}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The goldfish did make my day better.Thank you, Kautilya3. Soham321 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

D. E. Smith

There is no article telling us who he is. What we have is a poor stub full of mini-quotes in Yogesh Khandke style. That tells us how important this now-outdated book was in its time. What we need to know in the context of Jawaharlal Nehru is what qualifies Smith to form such an opinion. That would be, for example, that he is/was a political scientist or a historian. Given that it is 50 years since, it might also be necessary to say that this is an old opinion, ie: something like "In 1965, the political scientist Donald Eugene Smith said that yada yada".

Soham, I am trying and trying to show you how to write well and you simply keep fighting it at every opportunity. I'm not known for a saint-like patience and sooner or later I will snap unless you start to come to your senses. I'd get criticised for that; you would probably end up in a worse position. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I've replied to this, and also pinged you, on the talk page of Jawaharlal Nehru. Please discuss content disputes in the talk page of the main article under dispute.
Hi buddy, try to listen more and talk less. Sitush has more than 10 featured/good articles. We would be lucky to produce one. So, let us try to learn from him rather than to argue. Deal? - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
A content dispute has nothing to do with an editor's writing skills. Soham321 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not a "content" dispute. It is a style dispute, where experience definitely counts. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Whether Donald Eugene Smith's book India as a Secular State should be considered 'out of date' is definitely a content dispute and not a style dispute. Soham321 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
No, it is still style. A GA reviewer would also raise an issue about out-of-date sources. The correct response is that the book was current for the material we are using from it. (If I cited Smith to argue how Hindus are supposed to be fundamentally secular, it wouldn't wash.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Let us agree to disagree. Soham321 (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"Agree to disagree" will not wash in the long run. You cannot keep saying that every time you find yourself on the wrong end of a discussion: you either learn or you eventually find yourself considered to be lacking in competence. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am surely entitled to disagree with you and Kautilya on whether Donald Eugene Smith's book India as a Secular State should be considered 'out of date' or not. Soham321 (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

This edit summary is not a reason to remove a link. Please see WP:RED. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

All right. I thought the link to a non-existing wikipedia page had been inserted accidentally. But i don't really care if you prefer to maintain the link. Soham321 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Sitush might be giving a hint that the opinion of a random news reporter is not encyclopaedic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
If that is what Sitush is thinking then Sitush is wrong. Suresh Nambath is not just any random news reporter; he is the Co-ordinating Editor at The Hindu newspaper as per his official twitter account. In other words, we are talking about a senior journalist and not just any random journalist. Soham321 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, everybody gets called an "editor" of some sort or other these days. But it doesn't matter what kind of an editor. Only scholars' opinions count on Wikipedia. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
How do you explain the fact that the journalist Arun Shourie's book Eminent Historians in which he slams many noted Indian historians has its own wikipedia page? Clearly journalist's opinions do count on wikipedia. Soham321 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
A journalist's opinion is not authoritative. That a book such as Shourie's may be notable as a book does not make his opinion any more viable. I left Nambath as a redlink while I tried to find out some information for a potential article; it turns out that he is nothing special at all, so we can bin both the link and indeed the entire statement. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
This comment should have been posted at the talk page of the article--pinging me and Kautilya and others if Sitush wanted to--and not here.Soham321 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please sort out your indenting, Soham. As for your remark about placement, I was responding to your query regarding Shourie, which is appropriate neither at the Nehru article nor those for either Smith's book or Shourie's. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That is fine, but you also suggested that the Suresh Nambath reference in the main article of India as a Secular State should be binned. Any discussion about binning of a source from the main article should be taking place at the talk page of that main article, and not on my personal talk page. Soham321 (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
It is. I am not superhuman and cannot be in two places at once. - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
(ec) That kind of thing is rarely discussed in talk pages. It is basic WP:RS. An edit summary is all you get. Sitush was just trying to give you a bit of private tutoring on your talk page because he likes you :-)
As for the Arun Shourie stuff, see Talk:Dwijendra Narayan Jha#Arun Shourie. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
A relatively minor point, Soham, but I think one worth mentioning. You say above that pinging would do the job. Alas, for reasons that I do not understand, it is well-known that {{ping}} etc do not in fact always result in a notification for the pinged person. Also, just in case you are unaware, if you mis-ping for some reason (eg: you mis-type the contributor's name) it is no good just editing that message. You would need instead to compose an entirely separate message that incorporates a valid ping and refers the pinged contributor to your failed attempt. Or just drop them a note on their talk page, as I did for one of the arbitrators earlier today. - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
You can always leave a note on the talk page of the involved editor that a discussion is taking place in the talk page of the article which may be of interest to him/her, but content disputes for any article (particularly important content disputes like whether a source should be binned or not) should take place at the article's talk page so that future editors have a record of prior discussion on the article. I think its critical for future editors of an article to know about past discussions about the article's content. Soham321 (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Eckankar excessive and inappropriate editing

"Philosophy, religion, or politics[edit] For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Philosophy.2C_religion.2C_or_politics

Eckankar is a religion. Adding in disputed and controversal criticisms is inappropriate outside of the Criticism Section. That section is appropriately called "Criticism". Scholars state their names and credentials. And when their observations are contradictory to the religion on whith they are commenting, they are indeed criticisms.

Please respect the beliefs of others and also the Wikipedia rules. --Sarunfeldt (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am posting my response to the talk page of the article. Please continue the discussion there. Soham321 (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Please try to relax a little bit. I'm not out there to harm you, or to attack anything you try to communicate. As far as I can see, you know a lot, you read decent sources, and I'm interested in hearing what you've got to add. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I have nothing personal against you. In fact i like you as a person. It is just that i do not think your editing on the Two truths doctrine was leading to the article becoming better; in fact the article was becoming worse in my opinion. I wish you would have stopped editing this article when i asked Ogress to do the editing since both of us seem to have trust in her. At any rate, i have now pinged on the talk page of the article every single person who has ever edited this article for a second opinion on our content dispute. I am sorry if i have hurt your feelings, but in my opinion our primary focus should be on making wikipedia articles better. Soham321 (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks and edit warring

Soham321: You are engaged in personal attacks and edit warring again, this time at the Carvaka article such as here in your edit summary and here. I see various veteran members of wikipedia community, such as SpacemanSpiff, Joshua Jonathan and Abecedare have advised you repeatedly above on such disruptive behavior. Please stop. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I am giving my response on the talk page of Carvaka. Soham321 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Soham321: Once again, please stop personal attacks such as the competence-related remark you made here on Carvaka talk page. Respond constructively to suggestions to reach consensus and collaborate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no personal attack. When you declare Chattopadhyaya to be a fringe source, and do so repeatedly again and again, despite the endorsement of his scholarship by Joseph Needham, Louis Renou and others--and despite Mohanbhan patiently explaining to you that your view about Chattopadhyaya is incorrect-- then i have the full right to ask you to read lacking in competence carefully. I also gave in the talk page of Carvaka, Ogress's endorsement of Chattopadhyaya's scholarship but even that had no effect on you and you continue in your quest of damning Chattopadhyaya as a fringe scholar. Soham321 (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

a six-month topic ban from all pages related to India, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing on Indian pages. See extended rationale below.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 15:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Extended rationale: I have dipped into your history somewhat, and seen a running theme, going back two years, of advice and warnings about disruptive editing on your talkpage, which as far as I noticed you have generally taken as evidence that the user speaking to you, not you, had the problem — usually you either remove the posts without comment, or blow them off. After an ANI discussion in August 2013 you got a one-year topic ban, which Kim Dent-Brown kept down to a narrow ban on Digvijaya Singh "as a gesture of good faith".[4] I've seen you recently acknowledge than the ban was well-deserved (can't find the diff, sorry, but I've seen it), even though at the time you reacted to it with bitter sarcasm about all the "buddies" and "meatpuppets" who had ganged up on you [5][6]. That was a long time ago; the reason I bring it up is that your acknowledgement gave me hope that you had become more generally prepared to listen to other people since then. But a review of this talkpage and your input on article talkpages unfortunately tells a different story.

I've looked more closely at warnings and noticeboard discussions after you were formally alerted to the ARBIPA sanctions a month ago,[7] (even though you were indeed told about them in 2013, too).

You've been involved in several ANI threads in that month, including this discussion and this recent one, where you opened a thread accusing Joshua Jonathan of disruptive editing, and were told by Abecedare that "No admin action should be needed, unless Soham's disruption and needless escalation continues".

You have also received a number of warnings and a lot of good advice on your page, and have rebuffed most of it, from this thread immediately after the alert, and — rather strikingly — a recommendation on 11 July to "try to listen more and talk less", from an obviously friendly user trying to help. (They got blown off with some wikilawyering, in this case about "style" versus "content".) And right down to the moment, with Ms Sarah Welch's warnings above.[8][9] You are currently edit warring at Cārvāka and being aggressive with it, such as this rude remark] (please read what WP:CIR itself prominently says about referencing it: "Be very cautious when referencing this page, as it can be very insulting to other editors"). This edit summary is the last straw for me.

To summarise, I see battleground editing going back two years, and no improvement since the discretionary sanctions alert a month ago. It seems to me that you have repaid KDB's good-faith gesture in 2013 by continuing to waste constructive contributors' time, patience, energy, and good faith. I'm almost surprised none of the admins who have warned you, including recently, against tendentious editing and aggressive discussion style have taken the final step of topic-banning you; no doubt they wanted to give you as many chances as possible. Or they may have felt they were too involved with the subject. However, discretionary sanctions exist to protect editors' time and enthusiasm, because those are our most precious resources, and users who waste them must be reined in. I don't mean to say you make no constructive, helpful edits; certainly you do (compare the stroopwafels from Joshua Jonathan above); but it's not enough to balance the problems you cause. I'm therefore topic banning you from all pages related to India, broadly construed, for six months. Bishonen | talk 15:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen i wish to appeal against the topic ban since i believe it to be an unjustified exercise of Admin power, particularly since the two of us have clashed at a personal level in the past (when you falsely insinuated that i was doing editing using an IP address and subsequently retracted your accusation and even deleted your edit summaries). You are equating content disputes with personal attacks in an unjustified manner. And you are stifling genuine intellectual debates through Admin intervention which is detrimental to the development of content on the Encyclopedia. The fact that there is no battleground mentality can be easily seen from the fact that i now have cordial relations with Sitush and Ogress despite earlier having some personal friction with them. I am prepared to take this to ArbCom, but before i do so please tell me if there is any intervening forum where i can appeal your decision. Soham321 (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

From what i can tell, i have to appeal to ArbCom directly against your decision. I am doing so. Soham321 (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not the case that that's your only option. If you look at the template I posted above, it says you can appeal my sanction using the process described here, where it says you can request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); or at "ARCA". Only ARCA, of the three, is ArbCom. Bishonen | talk 16:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC).

Thank you.Soham321 (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This is very very unfair in my opinion, since the immediate reason cited for this sanction has been Soham's disruptive editing on Carvaka page while it was Sarah Welch's editing which was disruptive, and her behaviour which was not up to wiki standards. The Admin also seems to have not taken into consideration Sarah Welch's haranguing about Chattopadhyaya in spite of us discussing very civilly with her about this issue, and explaining Chattopadhyaya's continued relevance as a philosopher as against a historian. Soham was made to lose patience by Sarah Welch's disruptive reverts and continued haranguing about Chattopadhyaya. I don't think it was a personal attack to tell her that she didn't understand what we were communicating. I am deeply dismayed by this punitive action on Soham. I hope he finds justice at the right forum. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration

As it says at the top of the page, "If you must reply to another person's statement, do so in your own section" - I suggest you move posts to the appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Soham321 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Your Appeal

I haven't been involved in this dispute at all until now.

Are you really trying to get your topic-ban lifted, or are you really trying to walk your way into a site-ban?

On the one hand, you may have a point that you are allowed to go over the 1000-word limit in replying to other posts. On the other hand, what do you hope to accomplish by replying at great and tedious length to the other posts? Do you really think that replying at length to all of the other posts will persuade the arbitrators that the topic-ban should be lifted? Since the topic-ban is for pugnacious editing, has it occurred to you that replying to everything at length is pugnacious? Even if you have the right to exceed the word limit in replies, it isn't useful to exceed the limit in replied. Did you really think that you could get the topic-ban lifted simply by piling on the words?

At this point, my advice is to withdraw your ban appeal entirely. Just withdraw it and accept the topic-ban. That is the approach that minimizes the likelihood of getting a long block or a site-ban added on. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Soham, sad to know that you are topic banned, but you should follow advice of Robert, once someone gets topic banned then it is very rare to get unbanned. As far as my experience is concerned, your edits on Javaharlal Nehru and Caste system in India were good. But I don't know about other pages or your comments on talk pages. It will be to better for your "peace of mind" and future as a Wikipedia editor to leave this matter. Best luck. --Human3015 knock knock • 16:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, Human3015. Soham321 (talk) 16:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry to hear you lost your appeal, strangely, I cannot seem to find the appeal conclusions as to why they refused your appeal, would you kindly direct me to the decision so I might further understand how arb works please? Best wishes as always. Twobellst@lk 09:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Thomas.W:Many thanks for your help, regards.Twobellst@lk 14:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

!!

Hi, I see that you have ran into you a wall now, I see that your edits are with some force!, you have to give some time on some point of views which may not be same as yours (could be totally wrong) give it some time .. next time instead of saying right or wrong as you are doing now just give descrpition what is wrong with it ? , a mere wrong and reverts will end up here , I will be open to any of your q's if you need any help Shrikanthv (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Shrikanthv Thanks for your kind offer to help me with advise. I will reach out to you if i feel i need a second opinion about something. Soham321 (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban

Soham, please read the banning policy, because you have already violated your topic ban with this edit. WP:TBAN is the section you need to read: Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather." Your topic ban prohibits you from discussing or mentioning "the Hindu custom of Sati". It's a subject that has to do with India. I understand you didn't know, but please take note for the future. Bishonen | talk 18:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen, am i permitted to write on India related topics on my own user page (including the sandbox), and also on the user talk page of other editors while the India related ban is in place? Soham321 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
No. The topic ban applies to all Wikipedia pages, "..including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes)". It's all in WP:TBAN. Please try to find other areas to edit while you're topic banned. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen, I wish to make an edit on the Voltaire page based on a story written by Voltaire involving two people--one of them named as 'Brahmin'. The story is about Voltaire's contempt for asceticism. There is no mention of Hinduism in the story. Would i be in violation of the Topic Ban if i do so? Soham321 (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

In general, if people have to ask "would this edit violate an TBAN?", the best choice would be to not make the edit—the purpose of a TBAN is to reduce turmoil. In particular, given that the TBAN is very recent and there is a major discussion at ARCA, raising more issues at the moment would not be desirable. I suggest asking in a month. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with John. But now that you've asked, please put the text you wish to add here, and I'll tell you if it's acceptable. Bishonen | talk 07:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC).

Voltaire on Asceticism

In his story Babadec, Voltaire dismissed asceticism with contempt and his characteristic humor. In the story, Omni asks the Brahmin if there is any possibility of his ever reaching the nineteenth heaven.

"It depends," replied the Brahmin, "on what kind of life you lead."

"I try to be a good citizen, a good husband, a good father, a good friend. I sometimes lend money without interest to the rich; I give to the poor; I preserve peace among my neighbors."

"But," asked the Brahmin, "do you occasionally stick nails into your behind?"

"Never, reverend father."

"I am sorry," the Brahmin replied; "you will certainly never attain to the nineteenth heaven."

( Bishonen, the source of this edit is a secondary source, not a primary source.)

Soham, this contribution would be poor regardless of your topic ban. Yet again you are falling into the trap of unnecessarily quoting stuff at length. It makes for easy writing, sure, but it also makes for a very poor encyclopaedia with articles that resemble disjointed quotefarms. You really do need to get a grip on the concept of paraphrasing. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and while I do not know what the source is, dismissed asceticism with contempt and his characteristic humor reads like it might be an extremely close paraphrase, which is another recurring issue with your edits. - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you asking me if it's OK under your topic ban from India-related editing to add an anecdote centering round a Brahmin, a member of a Hindu priestly case, to an article? The answer is no. I don't care what source it's from. Please leave these matters completely alone. Steer clear of them. Bishonen | talk 17:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC).

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Voltaire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sati. 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) 09:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request archived

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 06:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

My Appeal

Twobells and Mohanbhan, just wanted to thank both of you for the vigorous defense that you put up on my behalf. Even though i lost the appeal in my opinion some good may come out of it eventually due to my bringing the matter to public attention particularly since i was able to inform Jimbo Wales about what was going on (WP:WER is surely a concern for Jimbo) and if similar cases go to ArbCom in the future the verdicts could be different. I respect the decision of ArbCom, even though i vehemently disagree with it. Soham321 (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't mention it Soham. I am really quite disturbed by your topic ban. Most, if not all, of your disputes concerned the use of certain writers who were (and are) being systematically excluded from wikipedia. Since ArbCom was not engaging with the subject (they traditionally don't, and perhaps can't, since they have a lot of other responsibilities) and were only looking at whether your interactions were "friendly" nothing that we said about the real nature of the dispute mattered to them. Content disputes should be settled by subject-experts IMO, and content disputes should not be turned into conduct disputes. Some of the proposals made here WP:DEVO are worth reviving. -Mohanbhan (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Mohanbhan and Twobells, if you think it appropriate we can argue our case in further detail on Jimbo Wales's talk page. As i understand there is considerable latitude permitted in conversing on his talk page. Soham321 (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Admin SpacemanSpiff had pinged six editors, including three Admins, in his comment on my appeal where he continued making serious accusations against me. The fact that only two of these people ended up posting on the discussion (one of them, Shrikanthv, stating that i should not be banned) tells its own story. Soham321 (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort. I avoided joining the ARCA proceedings because I noticed that it was going badly within a few hours, and didn't care to make it any worse than it was already for you. I agree with everything your critics have said, and I think you would do well to learn from the experience. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
If you would have posted anything against me in the ARCA discussion i would have pointed out the several occasions on which you have 'Thanked' me for my edits, and also sent a Goldfish to me on my talk page thanking me for my edits on a certain page. (I have also 'Thanked' you on one occasion on the talk page of that page.) I would also have pointed out that you were one of the editors who had been accused of colluding in a particular article by ABEditWiki in an ANI discussion; this is the same article in which collusion has been taking place acccording to Kenfyre, Twobells and others including myself. (I am not naming this article because i might be in violation of my Topic Ban if i do so.) Soham321 (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not know about Soham's offence. But, I saw his edits in Maharana Pratap on 12th and 13th June,2015. It was of high class. Morning shows the day. Finally, Tempora mutantur and everyone learns. ^_^ Ghatus (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ghatus Soham321 (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we are all on the same side, sort of. But I refuse to draw the battle lines the way you guys do. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
All his work has been of the highest class, albeit wordy ;-) I can understand why certain editors feel threatened by it, however, he needs to listen more to admin and accept their decisions even when it feels unjust. I recommend he learn more about the rules so he can avoid the most obvious attempts at mischief by a minority of editors. Twobellst@lk 15:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you should read WP:BANEX. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Twobells, did you notice Bishonen's threat to block Mohanbhan after Mohan had made several comments supporting my position in the recent appeal against Bishonen blocking me? Please take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#Edit_summary Soham321 (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Let it go buddy, it's done. As I said earlier, learn from your mistakes as we each had to learn from ours, you have a great future on Wikipedia if you can reign in your criticism of administration, it serves no purpose apart from testing their patience and to be fair they have been quite patient. Like I said learn from these mistakes and move forward, likewise, I will do whatever I can to help and advise you in any way I can, regards.Twobellst@lk 15:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
ok. Soham321 (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Come on, lets see a smiley face.Twobellst@lk 16:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Twobells, I am unable to smile right now because i am in the process of getting a divorce. Soham321 (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, I really hope things work out for you and your family.Twobellst@lk 17:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Soham, this is Rabtman. It seems as if you are being threatened of blocks because some editors do not agree with your edits based on their personal interests. Well...same here. 05:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Rabt man (talk)

Remember to be patient, and beware of WP:GOAD. One person who has also complained recently of a group of editors trying to get him banned, because of differing viewpoints, is Twobells. Twobells is a very experienced editor; i would advise you to seek his advice about how to handle the situation. Soham321 (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2015 (UT
Yeah, I'll go see him immediately. Thanks, and good luck. If you need any support, I can help.

Rabt man, Please remember to sign all your posts. Also, please know that canvassing is not permitted as per WP:CANVASS when it comes to ANI or ArbCom or any other appeal. In such a case, only if you mention a particular editor by name in your appeal, then you can leave a neutral message on their talk page saying you have mentioned them in your appeal. When you discuss the present problem with Twobells, i think he will be able to advise you better if you tell him the name of the disputed article(s) and also the editor(s) with whom you had problems. Soham321 (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Soham, how are you? I'm not quite sure what canvassing is, but i'll go check right after this. I have mentioned the name of the article, but I did not quite mean one editor in particular, but rather a whole group of them (there is a lot of them over the course of the article and they know each other [I know because of their talk pages]). So what should I do then? Also, I just read the top section, and I wish you the best of luck. I am a single parent as well.Rabt man (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Rabt man, Just give all the facts to Twobells and follow his advice. Thanks for the good wishes. Pleased to meet you. Soham321 (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Rabt man, you may also wish to see the talk page of ABEditWiki who had to face the same situation you are now facing. Two other editors with who you could consider discussing your issue, and seek advise from, are Kenfyre and Mohanbhan. These two are very balanced and experienced when it comes to facing the kind of issue you have been facing. Soham321 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for jumping into a discussion between two other editors (which concerned edit warring on Nair), as you did here, for the purpose of attacking Sitush yet. This is in breach of your topic ban, besides of course being quite inappropriate in itself. It's looking like you're egging on the new user Rabt man to do the type of editing you're banned from yourself, and to contact your old allies on the Indian pages. Trust me, that's not to the advantage of the newbie, nor of you. I have blocked you for 24 hours. Do try to stay away from Indian and caste issues when you return from this block, or the next one will be longer. Please note that this is an arbitration enforcement block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 14:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
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).

Soham321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I only wanted to give advice and guidance to the new editor Rabt man. Rabt man is complaining that certain editors (who happen to be senior editors) have been threatening him with bans and blocks for his editing which he claims is fully sourced. I advised him to seek advise and guidance from certain senior editors who have experience dealing with this issue, particularly Twobells but also Mohanbhan and Kenfyre.I also advised him to read the talk page of ABEditWiki who was also a new editor and who also had to face the same problem by the same group of editors. I did not make a single reference to the Indian caste system (or anything related to India) in any of my edits. My action of helping a new editor on how to face threats of bans and blocks (by senior editors who should know better), by advising him to seek advice on how to handle the issue from more senior editors who have experience with this issue constitutes Wiki best practice in my estimate. In my opinion, new editors on WP will simply stop editing if they are treated with hostility instead of kindness by senior editors. Many senior people involved in WP including Jimbo Wales himself have repeatedly expressed concern about the diminishing number of people editing on WP. Please see http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/can-wikipedia-survive.html?_r=1&referrer= for the NYTimes article elaborating on this issue and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fuzheado&diff=667836417&oldid=667797193 for Jimbo Wales's endorsement of this article.

Decline reason:

The edit in question does not appear to be addressed in the request above. Jumping into a discussion on an edit war in the topic area you are banned from to personally attack one of the editors you have had past confrontations with is simply poor judgement. I would reasonably think that it is within the scope of your ban, and would encourage you to cease boundary probing and find another way to constructively contribute. Kuru (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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).

Soham321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The edit which Kuru is saying i did not address has the following content "So, Sitush, are you now having a problem with another editor? Don't you think you need to tone down your unnecessarily aggressive editing style?" There was no content based intervention; it was only conduct based intervention since Sitush was giving threats to ban or block a new editor. I will also point out that Sitush has herself/himself indulged in conduct based interventions right here on my talk page. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soham321#Twobells I will also refer to the numerous conduct based complaints against Sitush which came up in the complaint generator specially built by Bishonen for Sitush: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bishonen/Clueless_Sitush_complaint_generator

Decline reason:

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.

Im sorry

Hey Soham, i'm sorry. You were not part of any of that, but I didn't know...I accept responsibility for this. Once again, I am sorry.Rabt man (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Rabt man, Don't be. Not your fault at all. Soham321 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have an inherent dislike for anonymous socking. I will not do it and i will discourage others from doing this. Soham321 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason is that whatever you do should be constructive, not destructive, if you want your efforts to be worthwhile and fruitful in the long run. That is why i consider sites like wikipediocracy and wikipedia review to be futile and really a waste of time. They have nothing new to offer except for criticism. For myself, i would like to be involved always in doing things that are constructive and fruitful. It is for this reason that i am heading towards Citizendium. I am eager to see how my edits will be received by other editors in the Citizendium (which is a creation of the co-founder of Wikipedia). This will also allow me to evade the 6 month topic ban (on all India related articles) imposed on me by Bishonen in a legitimate way. Soham321 (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

In deleting the advise given to me by the IP editor, Bishonen writes: "Remove bad advice from IP. Soham, they had removed it, what were you thinking putting it back? I've blocked the IP per WP:NOTHERE." My answer is that the IP was in my estimate giving me the advice in a hush hush manner perhaps hoping that others (besides me) would not notice it if he/she posted it on my talk page and then deleted it since he/she thought i would of course notice it whenever i would see the history of my talk page. My guess was that the IP could have been Kutsuit who has been stalking and abusing Bishonen ever since Bishonen blocked him/her (as per Bishonen's own claim). Anyways, whoever the IP was, i wanted to knock some sense into them, and also into anyone else contemplating doing what the IP was suggesting to me, in the event that such people were reading my talk page. Soham321 (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC) [This is a reply to the IP editor's most recent post:]As i mentioned there is an alternative to wikipedia, and that is Citizendium. Whatever articles you wish to create or edit can be done on this alternative encyclopedia. Since both Wikipedia and Citizendium are open source, if you do quality work on Citizendium your edits will sooner or later show up on Wikipedia (through the efforts of other editors). This is a far more productive, positive, and fruitful approach than offering criticism through anonymous socking. all the best to you as well. Soham321 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Soham, Citizendium has been around for years and is reputedly running out of cash. It is a open wiki and as such it is not a reliable source. The chances of something written there appearing on Wikipedia and staying here are slim, although someone might tap it for sources if they're daft enough (I say that because Citizendium has a lot of fringe editors and too few people prepared to check stuff). - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I know it is not a reliable source, just as wikipedia is not a reliable source. The edits made originally on Citizendium can show up on wikipedia providing the sources given in the Citizendium edits are reliable sources. Regarding citizendium running out of cash, i don't think knowledge and truth should be measured in a commercial manner. Soham321 (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Sitush, this may be of interest to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Citizendium_Porting Soham321 (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Soham, thanks for the advice, I will look into that new encyclopedia, as Wikipedia has been fast deteriorating due to a lot of old editors abusing their powers. Also, Citenzindium seems to be much more open and welcoming in their community, and I completely agree with their mission. Thank you, and see you there. Rabt man (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop it

You've put back the IP's posts twice. I don't understand why, especially why you put back a post that I had explicitly removed as block evasion. If you do it a third time, or put back other disruptive or block-evading posts that I or another admin have removed, you'll be blocked for disruption. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

P.S. If you're having trouble fending off this editor, would you like me to semi-protect this page? It has never been edited by a good-faith IP. Only trolling socks. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC).

RfCs

Please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment. An RfC is started by adding a specific template at the top of a new section on an article talk page - merely entitling a thread 'RfC' doesn't make it one. And note that the whole point of an RfC is to settle disputes where prior talk-page discussion has been unable to reach a resolution - placing the template ensures that external input is requested. In any case, you have made no prior attempt to raise the matters on the talk page, and are raising two different issues at once. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'll do a better job next time i start an RfC. Soham321 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Your comments about admins

I did not want to answer on Jimbo's page because its watched by admins who like trolling that page looking for things to do like blocking people they perceive as a threat. You can comment about the first group nearly anywhere including the admins talk page, the Teahouse or here. Positive accolades do sometimes attract comments from their supporters or adversaries though. Doing the latter will almost certainly open you up to retaliation and likely get you blocked as an enemy of the state unless you can provide extremely strong proof including links. With a bit of luck they might be told to knock it off...and you'll still end up with a target on your back. The Arbcom is the only one that can desysop an admin and they have a long history of making the process so hard that no one wants to do it, dismissing cases out of process rather than merit, turning their backs on the problem and blaming the victim and letting the admins off with "admonishment." If you want some advice, unless you are willing to stake it all and walk away from the project completely (as in being blocked) then don't do it unless its very important to you that attention be brought to some specific admin action. My guess is that the one you are thinking of commenting about has a long history of abuse (there are several) and no one does anything because they are admins. Good luck though. RingofSauron (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RingofSauron, thanks for your feedback. Soham321 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice you are giving to Atsme

I have been watching your various interactions on Atsme-related matters. If you are trying to help her, in my view the advice you are giving her here and here is extremely bad and will very likely lead to her being indeffed from Wikipedia altogether. You will do as you will, but feeding her sense of injustice is the exact opposite of what is helpful to her - it is like pouring gasoline on a fire. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This Time For Africa!!

Hi Soham, I know you are on imposed exile from India. I will suggest you to contibute to WikiProject Africa. Africa are more like India. Africa also has vast diversity like India. Socio-economic issues like poverty and social discrimination is also more like same to South Asia. You are interested in caste system in India, on same basis you can write on Racism in Africa. Africa is great land and according to many theories first human species was evolved in Africa, it is motherland of all Humans. I always wanted to contribute to WikiProject Africa but WikiProject South Asia is itself very vast so I never got time to contribute to Africa. Till now I created just one stub article Tourism in Zambia. Moreover, there is nice history of India-Africa relations. You know story of Mahatma Gandhi in Africa. You can contribute to various Cities, tribes, forests, countries, festivals and philosophies of Africa. It will also enrich your mind as a Human being. You have 6 long months, you should think over it. Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove  21:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

My knowledge base about Africa is very scratchy so i cannot follow through on your suggestion. Thanks for your advice. Soham321 (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

clarify?

Your edits to the template talk[10] are very unclear, can you describe more if you had any other idea than orange to use as color? D4iNa4 (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Messaging again in case you overlooked. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Boy"

Soham, apparently you are not aware of the racist implications of the word "boy" when addressed to an adult black man. That's fine--but that doesn't mean, then, that you can go on to deny it was a serious insult and that the person in question is being "racially hypersensitive" or something like that. In many ways "boy" is as bad as "nigger"; in some ways it can even be worse. Start reading (stuff like this, maybe); it is that important. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, i am currently under an Arbcom sanction ban on India related topics. I request permission for a temporary lifting of this ban so as to discuss the issue of racism towards blacks. Specifically i wish to talk about an incident allegedly involving racism towards blacks, that took place between an Australian cricket team having a cricketer who was half black (Andrew Symonds), and the Indian cricket team; the match took place in Australia. I am not sure whether i would be in violation of my ban if i discuss this incident. Please advise. Soham321 (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure either. It's not up to me to grant such a request, but I will tell you that your comments at the ArbCom case do not suggest to me you are qualified on the topic, and your failure to address what I just said doesn't help either. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to address what you had written through the incident that I referred to in my earlier response to you. Soham321 (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, please take it seriously. You said "it's not so bad, he's exaggerating" in a very public forum, while admitting that you don't know much about the subject matter--it seems to me that the next step is to learn more about the subject matter. For "boy", you could watch this clip and figure out why that one line is #16 in AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure where i have said that i don't know much about the subject matter. I am well aware of the need to be sensitive towards blacks. I still think that 'sonny boy' or 'boy' should not be considered a racist taunt and that Admins in particular need to develop thicker skins. The clip you are referring to contains the objectionable taunt 'nigger boy'. Please also see this for an example of being supersensitive:

Douglas Jardine had appeared at the door of the Australian dressing room, objecting that he had heard himself described as a "bastard" on the field. Vic Richardson, the vice-captain, turned to his team. "All right, which one of you bastards called this bastard a bastard?" Soham321 (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"need to be sensitive towards blacks."?! Sheesh.
Soham, if you are not knowledgeable of a subject and the relevant history, as you clearly aren't here, it is better to just listen, browse, read and learn instead of digging deeper. Sorry for being blunt, but you seem to be missing Drmies polite messages. Doc, not stalking you, I swear; page on my watchlist Abecedare (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If a black man is called "boy" by a white person, you can be sure that he's not being supersensitive when he feels insulted to the bone. "...should not be considered a racist taunt" is meaningless. It is a racist taunt. That you disagree (I don't understand how one could "disagree", but hey) means nothing: it is a racist taunt. When the white cop says "nigger boy", the "boy" in there adds to the "ordinary" racism a term specifically meant to demean a grown man, with a suit and a job and a college education, into a boy. It's a term that was specifically used by whites against blacks, and I tell you, if you go to the States and you call a black man "boy", I will not be defending you, cause I told you already. Note: in the ArbCom case you said, "I am also not sure how "sonny boy" has racist overtones"--well, clearly then, you didn't know. You should know now. Sorry Soham, but that's all I have to say on the matter; good luck. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Soham321, I'm stopping by to note that it is best to listen to people when they observe you are doing something hurtful and they are part of a disadvantaged community. I would completely concur with the OP that you have no idea the legacy of hatred you are opening up with that term, which to you seems so minor. Let me assure you it is as dangerous as old dynamite. It's really easy to say "haha get a thicker skin". This really is not the hill you want to die on because you aren't willing to listen to multiple people telling you it's Bad News, is it? It's close to as bad as the n-word. Now you know, it's up to you to decide to listen and learn or not. If you used either in real life to a black person, I would move away from you as fast as my legs could carry me because either you have a gun and are about to commit mass-murder or you're about to get (rightfully) beat within an inch of your life and either way I don't want to be a part of it. In fact, now that I've said my piece, I'm also going to get out of here along with Drmies. Ogress smash! 04:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Also look up Frank Zoeller and Tiger Woods; Sarah Palin and Barack Obama; etc etc. The history and long ugly, and not remotely in the past. Abecedare (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Also look up Martin Bashir and Sarah Palin. Look up, in particular, how Bashir lost his job at MSNBC. Soham321 (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested in listening to the views of Mohanbhan, Twobells, Kenfyre, Ghatus, Shrikanthv, and Rabt man on this issue. Soham321 (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Race or no race, calling a person beyond 15 years of age a "boy" is an insult. Period. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and the same applies to "girl" too, while we are at it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems a case of WP:DELICIOUS for me, I see that once a unknown mess is made instead of getting it over with it (accepting the mistake and getting it over with) soham you are just streeeeeeeeeetching it ! Shrikanthv (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, editors need to calm down and try to be, if possible, dispassionate about such charged issues. Having lived in India I can tell you that the term 'boy' does not have the same connotations that it has say in the US, and that's the crux of the issue, the English Wikipedia, is not US-centric, but one of many nations that read and speak English, please see this. However, it is the duty of all Wikipedia editors to try to and avoid such charged terms especially in relation to other editors, remember WP:GF at all times and you will not go wrong here. In closing, it deeply troubles me that language is being policed a little too strictly in the last few years and offence taken where none is given, or at least not explicitly implied, remember, the English-speaking nations are modern, liberal democracies where giving offence in the pursuit of debate is the accepted norm, being a by-product of democracy. I think the best thing for Soham321 to do is explain to the other editor that no offence was intended and that the other editor assume good faith. In relation to the request to lift the ban, nice try ;-). Twobellst@lk 10:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The selective sensitivity of wikipedia admins and editors, and their hounding of certain editors, is incredible. I got a sense of Soham's offense by reading the comments here, it is indeed not OK to use words which have racist undertones, BUT selectively targeting "Indian" editors is not OK either-- in fact selective targeting of editors of a certain nationality itself constitutes racism. See Sitush's use of the word "untouchable" to describe Ambedkar here and his repeated and insensitive justifications of the same, even after the other editor draws a parallel between Dalits-Blacks and untouchable-nigger. Not a single editor has objected to his use of the word; in fact, an editor has even supported Sitush's use of the word. Sitush's wrong does not right Soham's wrong but what bothers me how Soham gets admonished by numerous editors/admins and how Sitush gets off scot-free. Something is VERY WRONG here and the community needs to look into it. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just actually found out that the actual term employed was 'sonny boy', that does not have any racial or negative connotations whatsoever and if it turns out that the person concerned is penalised on those grounds then it would be an injustice, best wishes.Twobellst@lk 08:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree. Also, certain groups of editors have for a long time have harassed editors that they have not agreed with and have tried to use minor reasons to wikibully thise they dont agree with. When sitush and his friends use words like untouchable, shudra, etc no one seems to stand up to them. He has people like kautilya and others that back him up in his stuff literally 5-6 mins after sitush's comment. Its absolutely ridiculous to call an editor rascist if they said 'sonny boy'. Does it make that word rascist if sitush says so? It has absolutely no negative connotations whatsoever. Rabt man (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be hunting season here, with me as the target. I am not quite sure why I am being singled out but, for what it is worth, I too do not consider "sonny boy" to be remotely racist in connotation; at worst, it is mildly condescending and is in my experience a widely used expression. This doesn't mean I agree with any particular party to the case - I've not really looked into it. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano&diff=676816045&oldid=676779887 Soham321 (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baron d'Holbach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Directory. 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) 09:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Boy

Drmies, Twobells, Mohanbhan, I asked an american colleague at work, who is caucasian, about whether 'boy' should be considered a racist word if used by a white person for a black man. He said yes, because this was a word used during the days of slavery where a young white man would be calling much older black men as 'boys'. But he threw in a caveat: he said it would be unacceptable and inappropriate if a younger white man used 'boy' to address an older black man; but he thought it might be all right for an older white man to call a younger black man a 'boy'. Soham321 (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soham321/Archive_1&oldid=1143317347"