User talk:Xinjao

hi...

this is in response to your comments on topics of history of south asia. during history of china, there had been various dynasties of smaller span like zhou, wa, yin shong, wie dynasties and many dynasties that unified china (like Ming, Quin etc). Even then, all those dynasties are called chinese dynasty. similarly this indian subcontinent was composed of 16 states (called Mahajanapadas), later unified under Chandragupta Maurya, Samudragupta and many more. several times it broke and reunified. but this doesnt mean that "india" or "indian" didnt existed prior to 1947. Since ancient times, this whole subcontinent has been termed "Hindustan" by persian and arabs or "shendu" by chinese, "India" by europeans who came for trade since 1st century AD and "Bharata varsha" (the country of Bharatas(descends of king Bharat) ) by indians himself. from Vishnu Purana (200 AD By Vyasa)

"Uttaram yat samudrashcha himadraishchaiva dakshinam, Varsham tad bharatam nama, bharati yatra santati"

meaning: from Himalayas towards south, and from oceans towards North, the country is called "Bharata", where live the descends of Bharat. India, and Indians have identity since ancient times, Vedas were read all over india, Upanishads, Vedanta, Festivals, Languages that appear different from above, have common indian source from within. Its true that many many times India divided in several small kingdoms, but on many occasions, unified in its full glory not unlike any other country like Rome, china, greece or egypt. the biggest proof is that the terms INDIA, HINDUSTAN and BHARATA, existed long ago the partition of INDIA, used by foreigners as well as indians.

- rohit kumar, Varanasi, UP, India.

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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding dates in the infobox.

Hello. I would like to explain the reasons for the deletion of all dates prior to the independence of Pakistan in the infobox. It was not because they are not important dates. It is simply because the infobox is for facts pertaining to Pakistan as a political entity/nation. Prior to becoming a dominion, Pakistan as a nation did not exist as an independent or autonomous political entity. The dates for its conception, as well as other dates prior to independence, should go in the history ep section of the article. Look at India's article as an example. The on,y dates within the infobox pertain to independence. Like Pakistan, the Indian nation was a concept long before it became independent. Despite this, the dates relating to this are within th history section of the article, rather than the infobox. This is so not because they are not important, but because the infobox pertains exclusively to the nation. It wouldn't make sense if the Pakistan article were different. Anasaitis (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Brahmagupta, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Source added --Xinjao (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Xinjao. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Xinjao. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

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.

Using a self reverted edit[1] as justification for your disruptive editing won't really do any good,[2] there is lack of good faith when you deceptively call correct edit a vandalism. Don't mark such major edits as minor, you making such problematic edits frequently.[3] Lorstaking (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Lorstaking Please explain why you are reverting a change that was done in bad faith. Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cradle_of_civilization&type=revision&diff=804829168&oldid=804620625 I UNDID the nonsensical statement which has been discussed a million times across Wikipedia. Xinjao (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your own source said "India".[4] And you deliberately misrepresented source after my above warning. You still need further explanation? Given your clear lack of WP:COMPETENCE and the spurious warning you left on talk page of EdwardElric2016,[5] I am more inclined to tell you that you will find yourself blocked anytime soon. Lorstaking (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Lorstaking (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:CIR, editor frequently calling constructive edits a "vandalism". ~ Winged Blades^Godric 08:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for failing to display the necessary competence required to edit Wikipedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:57, 17 February 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Administrators.
I do not feel this indef block is reasonable or necessary. In my 11 years on Wikipedia, I have never edit warred or launched personal attacks against anyone. I have never been subject to any warnings, blocks or bans in this time either (except this one of course). As someone who has taken a keen interest in Pakistani topics over the last two decades I have edited articles to improve accuracy to the best of my knowledge. Inevitably disputes arise between users and I have almost always raised my concerns on talk pages or walked away altogether.
Keeping this in mind, I do own up to my mistake of using poor choice of words and a strong tone when I have addressed opposing edits, which I realise is disruptive and leads to unproductive and toxic exchange between users. As such, my use of the term "vandalism" was subjective and not in sync with Wiki policy. This won't happen again. I did earlier apologise to User Edward for the very same thing [6], which he appears to have accepted [7]. I will make a note of toning down my messages and be more objective when delivering my points to others.
I will also admit that I was feeling frustrated as my last exchange resulted in a false accusasion of sockpuppeting [8]. This is not meant as an excuse by any means but a little insight into why I was briefly feeling disillusioned and may have assumed bad faith. Once again, This is my issue and I own up to it.
However regarding my language competency, I believe my English is perfectly fine for the purpose of contributing to English Wikipedia. Prior to this ANI, nobody else has ever criticised my proficiency in English.
I do feel that a warning would have sufficed as I am a reasonable person and always open to constructive criticism. Please let me know if you have any other concerns. Thanks --Xinjao (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You were blocked on 2018-02-17 and may not apply for an unblock until 2018-08-17, as per community consensus. Yamla (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2018 (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.

unblock request

I guess as this was the result of a discussion at WP:AN/I I should post your appeal there. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim. Thanks for your fast response. Appreciate it if I could get some admins to review. I had some concerns about a user who supported my ban: Raymond3023 [9][10]. Not sure if I should raise this separately or not. But thanks anyway --Xinjao (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ignore the question. its being blown out of proportion. --Xinjao (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that you have concerns about other users, simply because they supported your indef block. How about talking about the reason of your block? Do you realize what you did wrong now? You already mentioned some of it in your unblock request, but the community has to be sure you understood all the reasons why you're blocked. And even then - it's not a guarantee of a successful unblock request. Also, please disclose any other usernames that you may have used, and whether you edited Wikipedia while logged out (as an IP).

Edit: And, please be honest. It's your best chance. I'm not a CheckUser, but I know what kind of information they may have available. Arguing definitely won't lead you anywhere, while being honest could stand a chance. byteflush _Talk 09:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

>User:Byteflush. I absolutely do recognise my issues as I explained earlier and I made no excuses for those issues, aside from the thing about my English competence which I feel is an unfair judgement. I do not edit anonymously. I trust this second sockpuppet investigation result will be the same as the first and I will do my best here to assume good faith, even though I have explained a false accusation like this can be frustrating to anyone. --Xinjao (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Byteflush The SPI was closed without action. [11]. I will assume good faith that Lorstaking had a genuine reason to suspect this. I hope you can assume good faith in my explanation as well. --Xinjao --Xinjao (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Your case has been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and the result was support for keeping the block in its present form. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback JamesBWatson. I acknowledge the result of this second community discussion but I was under the impression that the appeal would be voted on solely by administrator(s), as per Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks. The guide did not specify that the decision would once again be a community process, so I would like to request the appeal to be disregarded altogether. For future reference, I would also like you to note the rejected SPI which appears to have caused at least one voter to change his/her vote from support to temporary decline. Thanks. Xinjao (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving forward

When I copied your appeal to AN/I, I had missed the 6 month wait clause. My best advice is to count on a 6 month wikibreak and to then request the WP:standard offer. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

SPI

User:Berean Hunter I saw your update on the SPI and I am not sure what it means. I hereby deny having any other account in my 11 years as a member on Wikipedia. I have lived in at least 4 different countries so could you please clarify "same location". Xinjao (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I've modified my CU results in the SPI to explain location.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Berean Hunter Xinjao (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)