User talk:Alxndrdegrt

Welcome!

Hello, Alxndrdegrt, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Himalaya(s)

Re: this edit. Please see the article talk page and seek a consensus before attempting any such changes in the future. There have been discussions in the past over this very issue and it may be worth your time to look those over. Also there are several files, links, templates ect. on all articles that are sensitive to any change to their syntax, so the spelling with those must stay as is regardless. Your changes resulted in several broken files and links, so I reverted your entire edit. Thank you. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and your understanding. Personally I have no strong opinion on whether the name be singular or plural. In fact, one time I slipped and used "Himalaya" (without the "s") in an edit and was surprised to find it still standing months later. Like I said, it's been argued before and will probably continue to be a source of debate on occasion. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Satwant Singh, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came by to say the same thing, please use the WP:RM process for any future moves. —SpacemanSpiff 11:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your recent edits at "H. D. Deve Gowda"

Please consider reverting or changing these two edits, as they are arguably making the article worse: you distorted the meaning of the passage, effectively hiding the fact he spoke no or only a little Hindi (this may not be noteworthy to you, but it clearly is to the general reader in light of the prominence and also controversial nature of Hindi in India – certainly more so than the "Sleeping Gowda" fluff, with which you seem to have no issues); also, due to your edits, the remark in brackets and the carefully prepared references – which demonstrate the relevance of this information and you might want to read – make no sense now; employing "which" twice in such close succession is bad style and it's second usage is ungrammatical, anyway, not to mention the missing parenthetical structuring; it's "Hindi", not "hindi". Thanks, regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the passage was distorted to begin with. It implied Hindi was a compulsory/national language and cast aspersions on Gowda for not knowing how to speak a language that many Indians are not obligated to learn. Thanks for stopping by.AlxndrdegrtrX¹¹

Wrong. Clearly, as you've now again demonstrated, you didn't understand – or even try to –, neither my article edits nor my message to you. Otherwise, you would've at least realized that one of the sources I gave already explicitly addresses and contradicts your false claims (by now still making them, you just betray ignorance of the matter you rushed into changing) – and even criticizes Gowda for his later Hindi-learning efforts. From p. 148 of the Chand book:

Prime Minister does not know Hindi and there is nothing to be ashamed of it. He need not have apologised to the nation for his lack of command over Hindi. His attitude was an affront to the dignity and wisdom of the non-Hindi population of India, since he spoke as though one cannot live in India if he does not know Hindi. This shows he is only a prisoner of the Hindi domination of the front (or back), and is keen to keep his chair intact at any cost.
He will do well to remember that he is the Prime Minister to non-Hindi speaking people of India also. It is such chicanery and foolishness of the leaders of the South that is self-defeating and is to be condemned.
K. Ramachandra Rao, a reader of Indian Express, says Deve Gowda's decision to learn Hindi is not a step in the right direction. No Prime Minister hitherto has bothered to learn Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam or Bengali, although these languages are as much national languages as Hindi.
When earlier Prime Ministers visited non-Hindi-speaking States, they would address the people in Hindi or in English. Similarly, Deve Gowda should speak either in English or Kannada on State visits.
Gowda's effort to learn Hindi is tantamount to showing disrespect to the other Indian languages and also placing Hindi on a pedestal higher than that of the other languages. [...]

(Next time, please also use a time stamp for future reference.)

Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayas

Your edits of Himalayas were reverted as the name change has been discussed on many previous occasions and the consensus has been that the common use of the name is with a final 's'. See here and here. Apuldram (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also, you don't add any edit summaries and you're warring on top of that. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 5 November 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) 09:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Himani Savarkar without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Hello, I'm ThePlatypusofDoom. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Ashish Khetan— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soumya murder case

Please do not edit war, as you appear to be doing at the Soumya murder case page. Per Wikipedia:Edit warring, it is preferable for users to discuss controversial changes on the talk page rather than revert each other. If you continue to revert without discussion, you are liable to be blocked. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crisco 1492. I'm not involved in edit war here. The changes I've made have been based on accurate sources from reputed news outlets. The page as it stood earlier was downright intellectually dishonest & driven by coreligionist agenda. The changes I brought about have proper sources/references. - Alxndrdegrt

I recommend that you read WP:AGF and note that WP:EW clearly states that "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." If you cannot discuss the changes at the proper venue, and instead simply revert, you are liable to be blocked for edit warring. It doesn't matter if you believe your edits were "based on accurate sources from reputed news outlets" or not; you have "repeatedly restore[d]" your own preferred version in a textbook example of edit warring.

Again, I urge you to go to Talk:Soumya murder case and start a civil discussion with User:Jkadavoor, as required by WP:EP ("Discussion is ... called for if ... someone indicates disagreement with your edit (either by reverting your edit and/or raising an issue on the talk page"). Discussion on the talk page will keep both pro and con centralized so that they can be referred to if a similar issue emerges later on.

Also, please note that assuming an editor's religious affiliations, as you perceive them, affect his or her judgment is not acceptable. Unless you have actual evidence, please avoid such insinuations. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris WoodrichI fail to understand why this has be so controversial. The matter is straightforward. I don't have a preferred version here. I have simply brought balance to the page by bringing forward more facts which are backed up with reputed sources/references. As to why those edits are being removed, I can only speculate. My first edit was on 16th September. User:Jkadavoor specifically targeted those changes thereafter. He has never edited/shown interest in that page before I made those edits. Why now? It makes no sense as to why he should be irked by those specific changes. Those edits are relevant to the whole case. Take it up with him. Ask him why he is undoing it. User:Alxndrdegrt

You appear to still not understand the point of the policy. You don't need to understand why something is controversial. The simple fact that it is controversial (as demonstrated by the fact that you were reverted) means you need to discuss, per policy. Who knows? If you discuss the matter civilly (without assuming bias), you may find out why you were reverted.

And yes, you do have a preferred version. It's the one you consider to be more accurate, more representative of the sources, etc. Read the policy.

You have already reverted 3 times in less than 24 hours. If you keep going like this, you will most likely be blocked. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Pravin Togadia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Old Tamil language, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder of ARBIPA

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 that 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.

Doug Weller talk 17:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Rani Padmini, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. utcursch | talk 10:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinitely topic banned from any content related to India (including but not limited to history, mythology, religion, people) across all areas of the English Wikipedia

You have been sanctioned for long term disruptive editing in this space coupled with a failure to cooperate with other editors and heed warnings.

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. —SpacemanSpiff 11:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Even edits like this are a violation of your topic ban. —SpacemanSpiff 11:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Rani Padmini. utcursch | talk 11:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]