User talk:D4iNa4

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Era changes

Although it is my personal opinion that the article should use BCE, we need to follow the guidelines at WP:ERA so I have reverted you. I wouldn't expect you to know these guidelines existed, of course. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Modi

I am unsure what axe you are trying to grind here, but you really need to read the TP archives for that page. The exact text you are removing has been discussed before, and consensus was to keep it. Jaffrelot explicitly says Modi's "development" only benefited the rich, and that education, health, and so forth (which is human development, as the phrase is used in sociological circles) has been neglected. If you do not believe me, please re-read the paper. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Narendra Modi. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did 1 or 2 revert, not really 3. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On establishing notability for books

Hi D4iNa4,

So like any other large, scholarly community, we have our own lingo here. We use the word notability here as a term of art. It does not mean that something in interesting, or important, or worthy, or even correct. All it means is that other people have written enough about the topic so that we can summarize those writings into an article.

There are a few more nuances: the writing must be independent of the topic of the article (so the author writing about her own book wouldn't count) and the writing must (usually) occur in a forum where there is third-party editorial control (newspapers and magazines are great, blogs (mostly) aren't).

For books, this means finding multiple book reviews: long articles that discuss the contents of the book and its place in the wider world. If those book reviews haven't been written, then—in the wikipedia sense of the word—the book is not notable.

All of this has been spelled out in great detail at WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, and WP:NBOOK. If you're going to participate at AfD, it's expected that you have read and understood those policies and essays. It's not pleasant for us to keep telling you that you don't know what you're talking about, and I expect it isn't too pleasant for you, either. Spend a few hours studying the rules of the road and things should go a lot smoother.

If you want to see how AfDs should work (at least in my opinion), take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signature in the Cell. I found three reviews of a book that was proposed for deletion, presented them in a format that allowed easy checking, and asked for feedback. One editor didn't think that was enough, so I tracked down five more reviews. I didn't bring up the fact that the book is interesting or the author is famous, or that lots of bloggers reviewed the book: while true, those aren't relevant to the issue at hand.

Anyway, most folks hit a rough patch or two when they first start editing. Spend some time with the instruction manuals and your time here will be a lot more fun.

Looking forward to working with you in the future,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, and WP:NBOOK. But when you see that the books have a well over of 20,000 results, 1,000s of mentions, you can believe that they would pass the above guidelines. After all, these pages have been here for 5 years or more. It can be said that thousands of other editors would've thought about them, whether they are required to have their page in wikipedia or not. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't find any reviews, I can't find any reviews, the original author of the article couldn't find any and none of the dozens of editors who have looked at the page in the past five years could find any. Maybe the reviews just aren't there, and google hits are a poor guide to notability. Just a thought.... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This is a non administrator notification, and will be logged as such on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Darkness Shines (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yogesh Khandke. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

D4iNa4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked. I haven't edited since one month before block and want to edit now. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. The fact that you want to edit is understood but irrelevant. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Anthony I already said that why the block was made. I was saying that I understand the block, not to use multiple accounts for illegitimate reasons. Now that I want to start editing again, I want this account to be unblocked first. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have refused one request I shall not do so again. But I will point out that the fact that you want to edit is not a reason for allowing you to do so. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

D4iNa4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:Callanecc had blocked one year ago, since then, no multiple accounts have been abused and there has been no evasion of block. I promise to continue using only this account. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've unblocked you given it's been a year and you haven't evaded your block. Welcome back! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before we go any further, I want you to provide a complete list of accounts that you have created. PhilKnight (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philknight, you should visit [1]. I had created only 2 accounts, RealRx and Aciddery. I had forgot the password of this account, that's why I had created Aciddery like I had described.[2]

That's why no other account were confirmed by admin Dord.

RealRx was blocked on 1 April. If RealRx was a sock of Rafikhsk, why Rafikhsk was not even blocked until May 2014? Rafikhsk doesn't seem to have edited since 2011.

The original block of RealRx was made in mistake, because it was not a sock. Another blocked editor as a sock of Rafikhsk made this edit[3] while I made this[4] removal with my account. Another opposite edit :-[5] and removals of this edit:- [6] [7]

It must had been a mistake that my account had been blocked as a sock. I had never did any tag teaming or double voting with any of my accounts on same page, I just never knew that they should be declared on usepages. There was no actual violation of multiple accounts, cause I never teamed up with my accounts on same page.

For more than a year I haven't even edited. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user has sent an e-mail to the UTRS tooladmins list because they've responded to PhilKnight's query above but they remain waiting for the appeal to get processed. I moved PhilKnight's "decline" reason as a comment under the unblock request in order to get the unblock request reactivated now that D4iNa4 has responded. For what it's worth, IMHO a year later, the user promises to stick to one account and show at least some manner of understanding of what they did wrong, so I'd likely favor giving them some WP:ROPE (possibly after confirming with a CU if there was more recent abuse?) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a year. @Callanecc: - are you okay for an unblock per the above discussion? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done since they've already been waiting a while. Thanks, Ritchie. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of territorial disputes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guanacaste (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akshardham Environmental Violation Section

I need to stop calling content dispute vandalism. I apologize to you. I asked User:jpgordon the same thing and and maybe you can clarify, as I fully make my way through WP:copyright , when we are suppose to use direct sentences and does everything have to be quoted if it is being cited? I find myself conflicted because when I write another way, someone tells me that the no where in the source does it say that because I summarized. Thanks for your reply.Swamiblue

October 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Siachen conflict, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. See the section "Disputed??" of the article's talk. Thanks. Faizan (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Faizan: How much this warning is worth here? He made just one edit (that too with proper and valid explanation at talk page of the article) while edit summary of your notice says "frequent changes without consensus". It was you people who made frequent blunder changes without consensus. Be soft on other editors, don't make Wikipedia a Battleground. Don't harass editors by keep on posting various unnecessary warnings. Thank you. --Human3015^TALK 15:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Operation Dwarka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tanker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Administrators' Noticeboard

There is mention of you on the WP Administrators Noticeboard. See here: [8] Xtremedood (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert - India and Pakistan

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.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33[reply]