User talk:Lowkeyvision

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Lowkeyvision! Thank you for your contributions. I am I am One of Many and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! I am One of Many (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Bhagyalakshmi temple

I have mentioned you on the talk page of Bhagyalakshmi temple, you accused me of vandalism while I had given proper explanation in the edit summary, I have taken the issue on the talk page. Do not revert until you give some proper explanation. --sarvajna (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It is an important part of history. It should a period that the black & white view of the world that some people have of the world(where muslims were some kind of imperialists who didn't care about hindus) is not true. I consider it historical revisionism to take away good contributions muslims made towards peace and harmony with the community they lives with or ruled over. History is not perfect but the good must be reported with the bad.

File source problem with File:Aboobaker Osman Mitha.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Aboobaker Osman Mitha.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the example of the book that contains the original image on the internet. http://aomitha.blogspot.com <--How do you cite something that is not in english?

There is no copyright for this image filed in the united states as far as I know. I am the creator of this portrait which is modeled after the original image and I uploaded it. The recreated portrait is based off an image of Major General A O Mitha in a book that is roughly translates to "Unlikely beginnings: a soldier's life". The original image is very old. I don't think there is US copyright on the original image because I dont see any marking on it that state copyright on the images

(Lowkeyvision (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC))

I have address the issue, made citations and filed my claim to the image (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC))

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Aboobaker Osman Mitha.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Aboobaker Osman Mitha.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Aboobaker Osman Mitha.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Aboobaker Osman Mitha.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Aboobaker Osman Mitha.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Aboobaker Osman Mitha.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.

This image has been deleted because you have copied it from a copyright book. Please don't do that any more. All books are copyright. Also, please do not remove speedy deletion tags from files; leave that to the reviewing administrator. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The book has no copyright in the US, but I guess if all books have a copyright then I must delete it. Thank you (Lowkeyvision (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

Removal of content from talk pages

Please note you are not supposed to remove the contents from the talk page even if the issue is resolved, if you think that the page is large you can archive it, do not do it again. It amounts to disruption --sarvajna (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Feb 2013

Your recent editing history at Bhagyalakshmi temple shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Please note that you are not supposed to censor anything. Looks like you want to remove any references made about some political party --sarvajna (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the article is trying to politiize and push a political agenda. It is biased and tiled towards one side. It does not have a neutral point of view as of now. Please explain why including so much information about recent events is relevant? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC))

Tell me why you want to hide those events from the article, can you tell me how do we make the article neutral without excluding those events. Well may be its your point of view but please note that wikipedia is not censored --sarvajna (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see explanation on the article page. As I state before, it is recentism and it reserves it own section and does not have to be plastered on the main page of the article. See the example I provided to the example you gave. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC))

I have replied on the article talk page. --sarvajna (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk page

The next time when you start a section on my talk page, please start it at the bottom of the page, you can use the button on the top right called "New section". I have reverted you again on Bhagyalakshmi temple page, as I have told you so many times you cannot censor things on wikipedia if you feel that a new page is required go ahead and create a new page. Coming to the page of RSS where does the RSS says that its opponents are Christians and muslim minorities? Stop pushing your POV. However I have kept the title of the section "Court rulings against RSS" intact, I am taking it to the talk page and want to see you logic on that.--sarvajna (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

This [1] revert of yours makes no sense, if you have ever cared to read my comment I said that there is a seperate section for the comment of Hindu Terrorism made by Shinde in the page itself, its here [2]. What you did was that you combined two different sources one is the google book that War at the Top of the World: The Struggle for Afganistan, Kashmir and Tibet and the remarks made by shinde and created some synthesised statements please read Wikipedia:SYNTH before you do such a thing. Please do not revert me. I will be explaining the same thing on the talk page. --sarvajna (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to censor anything on wikipedia like you were trying to do on the another article, just to inform you again the Hindu terror remark by Shinde is very much part of the article here Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Alleged_involvement_in_Hindu_Terrorism. For god's sake read the article first. --sarvajna (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Once more

Can you really stop your nonsense on the page of Bhagyalakshmi Temple, on the one hand you accused me of censoring information on a different page where I did not censor anything and on the other hand you try to censor things on another article. This is simple logic, you were the one who claimed that the controversies needs another article not me so ONUS is on you (Its not exactly the right page but its very close). Your behavior is highly disruptive. Wikipedia is very vast, you can edit any other less controversial articles or may be create new articles, I am sure you will enjoy being here. If this goes on I will not find it difficult to seek an administrator's intervention. Again for the last time please give me any genuine reasons why you feel that those controversies should not be included in the article. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello once again please note that you should leave messages on talk page not on user page as you did it here [3]. I am not hounding you. If you think so you are very welcome to report me, to make your task easier I am letting you know that WP:ANI is one of the places where you can report user behaviors but please beware of WP:BOOMARANG before you report me.--sarvajna (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If I wanted to report you I would have already. I am trying to be resolve this in the most civilized manner possible. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC))

You are dealing with Mahtma Ghandis disciple. I have patience and persistence. In the end truth prevails. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC))

I know whom I am dealing with, I am dealing with a POV pusher if you are a mahatma Gandhi disciple you would have been on his page discussing page move as I am doing there. Do not insult Gandhi by calling yourself his disciple.--sarvajna (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to cover up facts about an organization whose founding member and second president praised the Nazis and wished the RSS was like the Nazis. Your personal attacks are meaningless (Lowkeyvision (talk))

Check the RSS talk page, I think we have a solution in sight, also please keep your personal opinions with you. Do not become biased because you have some opinion of RSS. --sarvajna (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Hello, I'm Jab843. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Talk:Nova Publishers, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jab843 (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Saffron terror".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 05:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC) DRN Notice of Dispute resolution discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! Qwyrxian (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC) WP:ONUS at RSS page Please read it before you present a bogus source. Gandhi was named in my school book should I call Gandhi an alumni of my school. You are just being naive here. Once again I request you to keep your biases with yourself while you edit wikipedia. --sarvajna (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC) I am citing textbooks, major newspapers and magazines. You are citing yourself. Dont talk to me about bias. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)) February Why did you do this edit. I knew you did not had any answers to it. Hope you would stop lying. Thanks--sarvajna (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC) You are now resorting to personal attacks of calling me a liar, which is not the behavior of a good wikipedia editor. I have cited textbooks, magazines and newspapers. If you have a problem, take it to the noticeboard. We can let a neutral third party judge. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)) When you lie about me, do you expect me or anyone for that matter to keep quite? Lets keep it aside I have given the text of your textbook. The book doesn't even come close in calling RSS a terrorist organization. So that book is useless. Rest I have clarified on the talk page.--sarvajna (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC) you are doing it again You have lied again, you are becoming a habitual liar. I never said whatever you claim here. Infact I was the one who said that I care about what is written inside the book rather than its title. I was very clear on that. --sarvajna (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Image tagging for File:Grimaldis Pizzeria Entrance.jpg Thanks for uploading File:Grimaldis Pizzeria Entrance.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. For more information on using images, see the following pages: Wikipedia:Image use policy Wikipedia:Image copyright tags Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Hello Again The dispute has been resolved yet, so hold on and do not make changes to the article. Also I would be removing the statements of Shinde as he has expressed regret over his statement here --sarvajna (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Do not erase Shindes comments. Add that BJP threatened to shut down the budget meeting as a reuslt of Shindes comments. Then put Shinde took back his comments. Stop censoring the articles. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)) March 2013 Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Memon people, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Please discuss changes before you make such radical ones. I have contributed more to this article than you have taken away. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)) Your contribution argument carries no weight. Lots of people contribute lots of stuff but if it violates policy etc then it has no place here. - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC) You are violating policy by deleting documented information This is vandalism. Good faith is not deserved here because you are deleting stuff on purpose that is cited and when asked to discuss it on the board, you choose not to discuss the changes. If you wish for me to assume good faith, discuss the changes. Dont hack and slash the article (Lowkeyvision (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)) No, sorry. You appear to misunderstand our policies. Much of what you reinstated was not in fact documented and amounted to violations of WP:BLP. In addition, your use of sources affiliated with the Memon people falls far below our usual standards, which generally prefer independent sources. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Your recent editing history at Memon people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 days for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Template:Z10 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). Lowkeyvision (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I had applied for edit protection for the page. It was pending. I tried to gain consensus but the user refused and just reverted my posts. Decline reason: Per comments below, user is no longer contesting the block. —Darkwind (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2013 (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. I Note to reviewing admin: I was trying to add the following to the block notice, but edit conflicted: While the article only shows 3 reverts under your name, you logged out and made one edit as an IP. I know for certain that said edit is yours, due to past edits the IP has made (editing your own comments on article talk pages). I was strongly tempted to block you for longer since the logging out appears to be a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny, and because you've been told before that you cannot call good faith edits vandalism. You have got to learn that Wikipedia is a collaborative process. You cannot declare that your work on an article overrides the requirement that you follow policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2013 (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). Lowkeyvision (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I was reverting vandalism. If you look, he deleted my works which were cited. He did not show good faith to even things that were cited. Fine. Karma. (Lowkeyvision (talk)) Decline reason: Per comments below, user is no longer contesting the block. —Darkwind (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2013 (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. Please re-read WP:VANDAL. Edits that attempt to make articles comply with policies are never vandalism. Again, calling good faith edits vandalism amounts to a personal attack. Finally, please use only one unblock request at a time--you can continue the conversation without making a second request. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Okay. Like I said the block is fine. Karma is real. (Lowkeyvision (talk)) 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). Lowkeyvision (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I changed my mind and I would like to appeal this block because I was reverting vandalism. I was stopping vandalism and if you look at what was done to the Memon People page it was clearly vandalism. I had requested edit protection for the page. The administrator Qwyrxian had filed a dispute on the dispute resolution noticeboard a few weeks earlier. Consensus was reached in my favor. I feel that this block is personally motivated and is passive agressive abuse of administrative authority. The administrator has also tried to subvert me at other times on message boards. Furthermore, this was never done on the 3WR review board but done as vigilante "justice" that propogates sheer vandalism on Wikipedia. I would like to be unblocked. Thank you. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)) Decline reason: There was no WP:VANDALISM; there was a content dispute, and you edit warred to continue your position in the content dispute. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:40, 2 March 2013 (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. As it says, Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Talk:Saffron terror Lowkeyvision, you've veered well into soapbox territory with your comments on that talk page. Proving Godwin's law is never a good thing and, usually, is a self-defeating, not to mention offensive, argument. I tend to have a somewhat liberal attitude, but I wouldn't be surprised if some other admin is less amenable to your KKK and Nazi comparisons. Please consider this both friendly advice and a warning. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Request for removal I would kindly like to ask you to remove your last edit at Talk: Saffron terror. It's so bad that if I came upon it as an uninvolved admin, I'd not only undue it, I'd revision delete it (that means it would disappear from the history. Whatever your personal political beliefs are, you cannot use WP talk pages to compare groups of living people to Nazis and the KKK, nor can you label groups as terrorist just because you are certain they are. I would prefer that you just remove it rather than seek sanctions against you, but the edit really needs to be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I removed the edit(Lowkeyvision (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)) Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Please do not accuse me of sockpuppetry or vandalism These contributions by you are appalling, as are several other recent remarks. If you have any evidence that I am socking then I would be grateful to see it and so too would a lot of Indian caste contributors who dislike me. You also need to read WP:VANDALISM, although I think that you have previously been advised not to accuse people of vandalising articles when it is clear that they have not done so. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC) I quite agree, as I've said at the page. Continuing to make unfounded accusations like those will result in another block, and the next time might be indefinite. Cut it out. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC) You should also not accuse me of violating copyright when it clearly is not the case, as you did with this edit. In fact, I've just reverted all of your recent edits to the Lohara dynasty article as you claim, mistakenly, that they are violates of our policy concerning neutrality. I realise that you made exactly the same statement on the talk page as you did in your edit summaries but, really, you need to do better than that: the statements were sourced, the source appears to be reliable etc. If you know of reliable sources that say differently then, of course, we can include them also. Right now, it looks like a series of WP:POINTy edits due to friction elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC) [4] <--Those interested in following the rest of the conversation. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)) Changing comments on talk pages Please do not make significant changes to comments that you have made on talk pages after others have responded to them. If you really must, then make it explicit what it is that you have done, both in the edit summary and the edit itself. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Why? I was showing you how you may have accidentally violated good faith. How else can I share that with you? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) It confuses people. They think that they have responded to whatever you said, and then you go move the goalposts. To use an analogy that hopefully you understand, think of it in terms of someone fundamentally altering medical notes after sending someone away with a prescription. The way you share what you want to say is almost always to start a new message. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Dont worry. I write Discharge Summaries for a living (Lowkeyvision (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) But I presume you understand the principle that I am explaining. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Actually I dont. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) In that case, and given your clear inability to understand various article-related policies, I must sleep on the idea of making a report at WP:ANI regarding your competence to contribute here. This principle is pretty simple to understand and failure to do so is rather alarming. - Sitush (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Lowkeyvision: Please read Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. You must preserve the original author's meaning and intent. If you still don't understand after reading that, please let me know. But, it's pretty clear, plus there's common sense, and you're smart, so I think you'll get it. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC) During the last few hours you have refactored posts at Talk:Lohara dynasty. The most obvious one is that you have struck out the word "anthropologist" in one of your posts, some time after there had been replies regarding that point. You have done this despite the above explanations and a link to our article on the issue + an offer of help from someone who is not involved in current disputes between the pair of us. It is not on because it makes a nonsense of the messages that follow. Please remove the striking. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Lohara dynasty Please revert your removal of the "weak-willed" issue at Lohara dynasty. You are well aware that this is being discussed and you cannot make a proposal on the talk page and immediately enact it as you have done. You need to wait for responses and, believe me, they will come. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for doing that. You need to remove the POV tag also - you are well aware that it is not necessary, as per your comments at User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/6#Time for a block? and responses from myself and others there and elsewhere. I would also suggest that you make yourself familiar with the three revert rule if you are not already aware of it. (Obviously, it doesn't apply to self-reverts.) - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC) The tag reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2013)." I have reverted the article to your last change. However, the maintenance tag is clear about whether it should be on the page or not. I hope you will continue our discussion on the talk page and not focus on the tag. Substance is more important. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) Your recent editing history at Lohara dynasty shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. OK, you are refusing to abide by the Three Revert Rule despite me suggesting that you familiarise yourself with it. It is a bright-line and, in any event, you have already agreed that the tag is not necessary. Please, please revert your latest insertion of that tag before you find yourself blocked for 3RR. Sitush (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I suggest you please utilize the talk page rather than make threats. Appealing to administrators to ban newer editors because you cant defend your points using intellect would appear not to be in good faith. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) Enough. Lowkeyvision, I've blocked you for 72 hours (24 hours more than the previous block, a standard escalation in duration) for your behavior, spanning a variety of pages and culminating in this edit. You were told to stop with the accusations, and yet you kept right on going with them. Enough is enough. Sitush was asking for my opinion as an admin, which is something he has every right to do, and frankly, I was considering blocking you back then, even before he asked. If you can't talk to Sitush without making these kinds of accusations, then you need to stop talking to him altogether. You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. 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 adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Writ Keeper (t + c) 18:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Sure. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) I would like to have my account deleted. Please change my acount to ******* or some random characters if you must have some kind of attachment to it. Please delete all my media files. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) I would request my user name be changed to ADSSDJJK and would like to use the Right To Vanish. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) For a simple username change, go to WP:Changing username. For the right to vanish (which will include a change of username to a random combination) see WP:Courtesy vanishing. JohnCD (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2013 (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). Lowkeyvision (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Am trying to use right to vanish and would like to request a Courtesy Vanish(Lowkeyvision (talk) 1:38 pm, Today (UTC−5)) Decline reason: You need to address the reasons for you block. You can exercise your right to vanish once the block expires. regentspark (comment) 18:45, 7 March 2013 (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. What is the point in this? I have made a fair account. I am offering an indefinite solution to this. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) I hear you. But, a courtesy vanish is not generally extend to users who are currently blocked (see the page linked to by JohnCD above). No sense in acting in a precipitate way so why don't you think about this a bit before deciding to vanish or stop editing. --regentspark (comment) 18:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Fine I would like to be unblocked because I didnt violate the disruptive policy. I added a tag that says it shouldnt be removed and the above editor constantly removed it despite multiple kind requests. Furthermore, I didnt violate 3R rule and reverted a request out of good faith. What in abuse of editing privileges was violated? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) The no personal attacks policy. I told you multiple times to stop the baseless accusations against Sitush, and yet you're still making edits like this one. I don't see any way to interpret "Appealing to administrators to ban newer editors because you cant defend your points using intellect" other than a personal attack. Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC) How about The tag reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (March 2013)." I have reverted the article to your last change. However, the maintenance tag is clear about whether it should be on the page or not. I hope you will continue our discussion on the talk page and not focus on the tag. Substance is more important. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) (19:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) (Lowkeyvision (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) To this I was given a warning of 3 reverts. And then this. Dude. Either way, this is done. I want it to be blanked. This isnt for me. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) (talk page stalker)Just because you think that the neutrality of an article is disputed would not mean that the article's neutrality is disputed.--sarvajna (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC) its fine. I will be back 3 days. Blanked. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) "Sometimes breakups aren't meant for makeups, sometimes they are meant for wake-ups." -Sushan Sharma . HAHAHA ;) (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)) Glad you decided to stay! --regentspark (comment) 23:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you. It would have been selfish to quit. [[5]] <--This is what I think me and Sitush are. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)) Lists I've reverted you at Memon people. It is best to use the neutral section heading of "Notable people" rather than the opinionated "Famous people" because, for example, we have articles concerning what many would consider to be "infamous" people but, at least in theory, no articles concerning non-notables.Also because the most appropriate way to demonstrate a persistent notability, as opposed to something ephemeral etc, is to create an article for the individual first and see if that gets challenged on the grounds of notability. Our WP:NLIST article has some related info but you'll find that what I say here is widely accepted. I'm going to mention WP:COI also: you have said that you want to concentrate on the Memon subject and from your various comments I think that this might be because you are a member of that community. No problem per se, but a read of our attitude to conflicts of interest might assist you in avoiding the associated pitfalls. - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Looking at WP:COI, I do not see a conflict of interest at face value. I am going to keep it in mind when I edit. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)) Some other things to keep in mind are WP:TE, WP:OUTING and WP:SOCK. The first looks likely to become an issue; the second is something that has been raised off-wiki, precisely because of its nature; the third is just something that you perhaps should be aware of given the degree of partial policy knowledge that you have demonstrated. - Sitush (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the information. I will keep all this in mind. Like I said, I am new and still learning the process. If I wanted to do bad things, I would have already done them. To quote Yoda "To answer power with power, the Jedi way this is not. In this war, a danger there is, of losing who we are." As from me, I assure you that you have nothing to fear. I am a believer in Karma. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)) Diphenhydramine I'll have a look. Have you read the Good article criteria? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Yes I checked that out. I am continuing to work towards that. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)) While I think the vast majority of your edits are improving the article, I really don't understand this edit. I think it is much better to use prose where possible. The use of tables should be reserved to summarize data, not to replace a description of a major section of the article. Boghog (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Please revert it. I think i got a too trigger happy with tables recently ;) hehehehe. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)) I think a table in the section could be used to supplement the prose, but the table entries should be kept very brief (i.e., phrases and not sentences). Hence I will partially revert. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Ah, I see Boghog is helping you—excellent :) I don't think the article is far off from GA level; perhaps some more copy editing, and a few more references for the largely uncited Medical uses section would be nice. I'd also remove the Charlton article from Further reading, as papers published in Medical Hypotheses are generally not considered reliable sources. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I added citations for the medical uses. I do not see too much uncited stuff. Boghog is doing a kick-butt job of aesthetics on the page. Any other ideas on how we can improve the article? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)) Content-wise, the article looks great. I'd say it's ready for GAN after another round of copy-editing/spell-checking. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Award for Maria0333 I've reverted you at User:Maria0333. There are only exceptional circumstances in which you should edit someone else's user page, and offering a barnstar is not one of them. Feel free to place such things at User talk:Maria0333. Please also note that it seems more and more likely that you are following me around and doubtless the "difficult people" you refer to in your barnstar text includes me. Just drop this attitude, please: there is not much more that I can do when I (and others) find problems with your contributions, other than to point out the error of your ways and offer some guidance. That you do not like what you are told by experienced contributors is not a justification for some of the stunts that you have been pulling, including the one for which you were recently blocked. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC) I saw your real face Sitush, you threaten other users. What a shame.Maria0333 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for your appreciation. In the life some times you face a bunch of difficult persons who are ready to tease you at any cast. Maria0333 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)