User talk:Capankajsmilyo

Nehru's Blunders

Hello, Capankajsmilyo. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Barnstar

		The Jain Barnstar
		For your contribution to the 'Jainism' related articles. --(nimit)

Thank you :D-- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo 14:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been topic banned for three months from now from editing all pages about Indian religions, broadly construed, including edits about Indian religions and about people belonging to any of those religions. Also from talking about those religions in any discussions. This ban applies to all kinds of pages (articles, talkpages, noticeboards, templates, etc) and to all types of editing, such as article edits, page moves, page creations, etc.

You have been sanctioned for persistent disruptive editing on subjects related to Indian religions. When I look at your talkpage and its archive, I see a lot of good advice and many warnings from quite a few editors, especially to do with using reliable historical sources. Experienced editors seem to have explained the sourcing problems patiently, and really tried to help you edit better. This is probably because they like your enthusiasm and good faith; I do, too. But it has come to a point where other editors seem to be describing the problems with your sources over and over, to no avail. What struck me especially was that you were asked three weeks ago repeatedly, and with much explanation, to "please go slow"[1][2] and to make yourself master of HISTRS before adding so much material, and creating and moving pages, etc, at such speed. And yet, after a day of slowing down slightly, asking a question at the Teahouse, etc, you accelerated again, and have been editing at breakneck speed ever since. Yesterday (23 September per UTC) you made 340 edits! Sometimes there were three edits to three different pages in the same minute. How could you possibly make considered, thoughtful edits at such a rate? You'd have to be a well-programmed robot — a human can't do it. And considering your rate of editing, I'm not sure when you would find the time to study HISTRS as it deserves to be studied, either, or to mull over what people tell you. And this means that other people have to use a lot of time to clean up after you and explain to you. That's unacceptable. When I first looked at your contributions, I considered giving you a strong warning to slow down, but after noticing other editors doing just that, without effect, I see no other recourse than to topic ban you. Three months is a rather short topic ban, and the reason I've kept it short is because you're still rather new. If you were a more experienced editor I'd have banned you for six months or a year. Please make sure you understand what a topic ban is: read WP:TBAN. That is a policy you can't afford to speedread, because if you violate this topic ban, it will be enforced with blocks.

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. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Edits like this and that and the other 30 odd edits you've done since Bishonen's sanction above are a violation of your topic ban. Any further edits and you will be blocked for violating the topic ban. It is especially important that you adhere to the ban as it's now presenting more evidence that you are either not willing to work in a collaborative project or you are not able to comprehend what's expected, both of which are highly disruptive and will likely result in being indefinitely blocked, not just the minor sanction imposed above. —SpacemanSpiff 07:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This is in reponse to your message on my talk page as I don't want to fragment the discussion. The problems have been with respect to your edits on religion, they were most visible on the pages of historical figures, but as Talk:Ikshvaku dynasty shows, it was not the only case. Given that the problems were so wide in reach covering the gamut of Indian religions I don't see how anything else would be sufficient. That a few edits may not in and of themselves be problematic isn't the question here, the point of the topic ban is to avoid others having to sift through edits to figure out which ones are good. As I had suggested to you over a month ago, it is perhaps best for you to edit areas where you have some expertise in and understand Wikipedia policies including WP:RS, WP:POV, WP:OR and others before you contribute to these areas where you have a hobbyist interest in. Sadly, you did not listen to that and it has now come to this point. This is still a very limited topic ban, both in scope and duration and I will encourage you to get a better grasp of encyclopaedic writing while this is in force and contribute effectively after that. —SpacemanSpiff 08:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I too will reply here to your message on my talk page; let's keep it all on your page for convenience. I don't understand how you can think your ban was "regarding HISTRS", if you read what I said in my ban notice above: "You have been topic banned from editing all pages about Indian religions, broadly construed, including edits about Indian religions and about people belonging to any of those religions. Also from talking about those religions in any discussions." That's what it said, and that's what it meant: you can't edit any page that has to do with Indian religions. Can't edit it at all. Obviously Jainism, for example, is an Indian religion. I'm afraid it's not for you to decide to respect some parts of the ban and not others. If you edit those articles or their talkpages again, you will be blocked. Please re-read my ban notice. Carefully. In that notice, I also urged you to read the policy WP:TBAN, to get a grasp of what a topic ban is. It frankly doesn't look like you did. Bishonen | talk 08:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC).

But none of my previous edits related to Indian Religions was opposed. The edits opposed were Indian kings and royal people, you can check my talk pages. My contributions related to religion (I only edit Jainism pages) was sometimes even thanked and I received a barnstar as well. And why talk pages? Why are they included in ban? Please reconsider my ban. I have never done anything conflicting on religion pages. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The thing which I am not getting is RS related to history, it being highly subjective in nature. The religion pages iv recently edited are not related to history. I won't edit any of the history pages, but please reconsider my religion ban, only Jainism. I have no issues being banned on all other religions be it Sikh Hindu or Christianity. You can check my past contributions in Jainism pages. I have helped expanding the stubs. And even nominated article Mahavira for Peer Review to raise it to GA level. I have added many pics via Wikipedia commons and have been engaged in positive debates (not conflicting) regarding Jainism. The only conflict was with the Kings and historical dynasties and empires. Ban me for lifetime on that. But please reconsider my ban on just Jainism pages. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are the last few edits that have been considered as wrong. Please check if anything was wrong in the last edits after ban.

1. Digambara - Added the actual words
2. Digambara - Links were wrong, is it good to let wrong links stay on wikipedia?
3. Manatunga - Again wrong links (disambig)
4. Jainism - Rephrased to make better presentation. The content which could be assimilated in a single line was spread over three lines. Consolidated that.
5. [3] - Spell and links. You can verify that I did nothing wrong here as well.

I even got Sallekhana protected by an administrator due to constant vandalism. I am just trying to help here. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody doubts you're trying to help, but I'm afraid I won't reconsider. As SpacemanSpiff says above, a) it's a pretty limited ban, both in scope and length, and b) the big point of the ban is to rescue other people from ongoingly having to sift through your (very numerous and fast) edits to figure out which ones are good. Please see here how you can now appeal the ban. You have already tried appealing to the enforcing administrator (=me) to reconsider, and I have declined, so you are left with alternatives 2 (appealing at WP:AE or WP:AN) and 3 (appealing at WP:ARCA, which means you'd appeal to the Arbitration committee). Think about it, check out those noticeboards, and pick one. I remind you that even if you appeal the ban, you remain bound by it until you are notified that your appeal has been successful. Bishonen | talk 10:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC).