User talk:Unbiasedpov

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Use of minor edit flag

Can you be more careful with the use of the minor edit flag please? This definitely wasn't a minor edit. Thanks, --John (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! John, I made 3 changes ( 2 yesterday and 1 today). Only today's change, which changes the word 'community' to more accurate 'caste' is flagged as minor edit. Now i understood that minor edit tag should be used only if current version was lasted edited by another use. Thanks, --Unbiasedpov

Oops, this was the diff I meant to send. I still don't think you should mark such edits as minor. --John (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

I see you'd previously moved Godhra train burning (which was unsuccessful then), there is a move request again, would you like to share your views on this issue there? Thanks a lot. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 09:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

As one of the largest active contributors to the Godhra Train burning article, a vote here would be appreciated, in either direction. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 22 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

These talk page posts 1, 2, 3 soliciting comment are considered instances of canvassing, because those editors were uninvolved in the discussion that you are asking them to comment on. If you didn't know about this guideline, that's okay, but please keep it in mind in the future. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to act on talkpages

In this edit you remove one of your own unsigned comments, and my answer to it. That is not allowed. You cannot remove other editors statements, or significantly edit your own statements once they have been answered by others. Please take the time to acquaint yourself with the guidelines for behavior on discussion pages.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was a sub-section i started but similar issue was already being addressed in another sub-section. Another user got upset that similar discussions are running on multiple subsections. Feel free to put entire sub-section back to it's original place. Unbiasedpov (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "2002 Gujarat Riots". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 September 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning 2002 Gujarat Riots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

2002 Gujarat riots

Unbiasedpov, you seem to be involved in a slow edit-war at the 2002 Gujarat riots over the past few weeks. And while you have posted numerous times on the article talk-page, frankly the sheer quantity, length, and throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach of your posts makes it difficult to judge if any of your individual proposals have merit. Your current approach is unlikely to succeed, is surely frustrating for you and your interlocutors, and is getting disruptive. You have already been informed of the discretionary sanctions applicable in this area, and unless your editing approach changes, you are likely to get topic-banned from this area. So instead I'd suggest that you to desist from editing the article at the moment, and focus on a single, clear and concrete proposal and see if you can establish consensus for that change. Abecedare (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "2002 Gujarat Riots 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 September 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2002 Gujarat riots, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. You cannot use your opinions for deleting reliably sourced information. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from 2002 Gujarat riots related articles, talk-pages and discussions anywhere on wikipedia.

You have been sanctioned because of continued disruptive and POV editing, slow but persistent edit-warring, and being unresponsive to feedback despite numerous warnings. In particular, despite earlier advice on how to discuss the issues constructively, you again repeatedly made multiple broad and overlapping proposals [1], [2] (which inevitably failed to find consensus) in parallel fora; changed the proposals even after others had responded; and edit-warred on the article page without finding consensus and in face of objections [3], [4]. Your conduct and repetitive arguments are disruptive, consuming an inordinate amount of other editors' time (on either side of the issues), and frankly preventing progress from being made (eg, this section) on a topic that requires more sober, neutral and collaborative editing.

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. Abecedare (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning 2002 Gujarat Riots 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Indian subcontinent. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Unbiasedpov. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dabgarward massacre

The page you wrote, and restored, has both massive copyright violations, and significant use of unreliable sources. If you reinstate it again you can expect me to seek sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]