User talk:Ulughu Khan

April 2020

Hello, I'm Alivardi. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Battle of Badr, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alivardi (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable?. Colonial ethnographers are not reliable sources. Also, have a look at WP:HISTRS in general. utcursch | talk 22:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Gurjar, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. As explained above the source you used is not reliable enough. If you can find a reliable source to support this information, it can be added. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism and violence

Please revisit Judaism_and_violence#Anti-Christian_violence and explain what you mean by "the new millennium". You might also want to reconsider using the term Middle East, which is not a historical term. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying these issues in your subsequent edits. Debresser (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General sanction alert

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

Abecedare (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban warning

As you have been told, there is consensus on Wikipedia that British Raj etnographers are not reliable sources. If you continue to edit and edit war in defiance of that consensus, you are likely to be topic banned from articles on castes and social groups. Bishonen | tålk 03:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Primary Sources

Hi. Please do not add material cited to primary sources to articles (except for quotes). See WP:PRIMARY for more information. --regentspark (comment) 00:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Ulughu Khan, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Rama have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have reverted some additional copyvio from Rama (content was copied from here) and from Daksha (close paraphrase of this). In addition, to copyvio issues, note that the writings of B.R Ambedkar are not a reliable source for history and religion except in so far as they are used to express his own views on the subject with proper attribution and only when due based on secondary sources. Abecedare (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Vedas, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have reverted now four times the rejection of your edits by three different editors at Vedas; discuss your proposals at the talkpage, and know for sure you will be blocked the next time you revert per WP:3RR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a proposal at Talk:Vedas#Recent edits by Ulughu Khan. Think carefully about it; I'm doing the work you're supposed to do, and it may be saving your ass. Take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

permalink to archived ANI post --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive and tendentious editing as well as edit warring.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 16:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I didn't know that the truth was determined by democracy in here Ulughu Khan (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It isn't. See WP:DEMOCRACY. See also, WP:GAB so you can learn how to craft an acceptable unblock request with a chance of success. Yamla (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

This block is incorrectly given because I was being bullied into submission by multiple other users who I suspect had an agenda. It should be reversed so I can spend my time editing pages frequented by less toxic users. I spent valuable time in writing quality, footnoted material that users simply undid because of their own beliefs, so that's why I was angry at them for wasting my effort and undid their edits. I have learnt my lesson to not engage with toxic and uncooperative people. Ulughu Khan (comment) 21:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"toxic and uncooperative people"? I don't see you editing constructively on any topic with that sort of attitude. I think you have one more shot at an unblock request and strongly suggest you read WP:UNBLOCK and WP:CONSENSUS before asking again. It might also be a good idea to take a couple of days off to cool down first.regentspark (comment) 21:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I don't want to beg for an unblock.

Decline reason:

Begging is not necessary . All we need is for you to state your understanding of what actions of yours led to your block and how you will proceed once unblocked. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD and relate them to how you will move forward. Calling others "toxic" is not owning your own actions and shows you lack the capacity to function in a collaborative environment. No one forced you to edit war. Please tell us what you will do instead. Wikipedia is not interested in"truth". As an encyclopedia, we deal in content supported by reliable sources. When we disagree, we seek dispute resolution. We focus on content and sourcing. We do not call others "toxic". --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS. It has been my experience that it is seldom other toxic individuals that result in these problems, but in one's inability deal with disagreement. I fear that if you simply shift editing focus, you will again enter into more conflict unless you have learned not to --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Judaism and violence

As an uninvolved editor, uninvolved in the block, I'd like to say, that I saw a good edit from this editor, and that I found him responsive to my follow-up request, see #Judaism_and_violence, and I think this editor will be able to contribute with quality edits to Wikipedia, if only he learns to stay clear from controversy. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: their addition of the section Judaism and violence#Anti-Christian violence is off-topic, and the info is taken out of context. Instead of

The rise of Christianity in the areas surrounding the Holy Land during the early centuries of the first millenium A.D provoked vicious attacks against Christians, both polemical and physical

more accurate would have been

The rise of monotheism in Ethiopia, in the form of Christianity, was mirrored by the conversion of the kingdom of Himyar in the late 4th century to Judaism.^[1] Two episodes of "coercion and brutality" by Arabian Jewish kings took place during the fifth and early sixth centuries.^[2] Thirty-nine Christian were martyred in the third quarter of the fifth century,^[3] and a massacre of Christians took place in 523.^[4] Eventually, the kingdom was overthrown by a military campaign of the Ethiopian Christian kingdom, invoking a confrontation of the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanian Empire in this Arabian region, contributing to the advent of Islam.^[5]^[6]

References

^ Bowersock p.83
^ Bowersock p.85
^ Bowersock p.85
^ Bowersock p.85
^ Bowersock p.86
^ Glenn W. Bowersock (2011), The Rise and Fall of a Jewish Kingdom in Arabia

This is not about "The rise of Christianity in the areas surrounding the Holy Land," but about the rise of mnotheism and the powerplay between various kingdoms and empires in the Arabian peninsula. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block evasion

@El C, RegentsPark, and Deepfriedokra: please have a look at this revert at Judaism and violence by newbie User:Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar which re-inserted above-mentioned edit from Ulughu Khan; an obvious sock. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ulughu Khan: Assuming that was you. You are not helping yourself. This once again argues against your ability to be a member of a collaborative community of editors building an encyclopedia. We have clearly explained what is required to be unblocked. You have chosen a different path. Please read the portions of the WP:GAB about block evasion and WP:SOCKing. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 10:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Bowersock p.83

[2] Bowersock p.85

[3] Bowersock p.85

[4] Bowersock p.85

[5] Bowersock p.86

[6] Glenn W. Bowersock (2011), The Rise and Fall of a Jewish Kingdom in Arabia

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]