User talk:Soham321

Use

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

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.

Eraly

Where is Eraly available in its entirety online? Certainly not at Google Books in the US or UK, nor at Amazon, DSAL and a few other regular "go to's". - Sitush (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

See here Eraly Soham321 (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

See User:Sitush/Common#GBooks. - Sitush (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Soham321 (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Babur

Can you please read WP:OVERLINK. Some of the stuff here isn't necessary. We usually only use links on the first occurrence of the word/term. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

ok. will keep this in mind.Soham321 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bhupendra Chaubey

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bhupendra Chaubey, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Your addition to Babur has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

What are you doing at Babur? You are adding content that often is not relevant and that has been copied verbatim from books, eg: from this page. The hope is that the article can be brought up to Good Article standard but instead you are taking it further away. Sitush (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to paraphrase and summarize to the extent possible while always giving the references, and recognizing that wikipedia articles are not the place for original research. Perhaps my edits could be paraphrased or summarized more adequately, but i challenge you to give a single edit where i have quoted verbatim from anywhere. This challenge applies even to the reference you have given. Could you please stop with the intimidation and start practicing more polite collaboration? In case you haven't noticed, i am not a newbie anymore.Soham321 (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Bhupendra Chaubey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bhupendra Chaubey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhupendra Chaubey (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Compassionate727 (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the point of including edit summaries in ANI discussions. Sorry. I do agree that edit summaries should ordinarily be given when editing any wikipedia article and normally i do give them. Sometimes if it is a question of adding a quote or comma or something small then i may not give it, but usually even here i do so. Sometimes i may not give the edit summary inadvertently. But for important edits i have been known to revert my own edit just so that i could put it back up again with the appropriate edit summary. Soham321 (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The only thing that comes to mind is that it helps recent changes patrollers like me decide whether or not we need to check and see if the edit was vandalism. Compassionate727 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Caste system in India. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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. Sitush (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Your past history of assuming ownership of any article on which you are editing means these warnings of yours have no legitimacy. Your edit is completely nonsensical having no basis on facts. The caste system was not a creation of the British as you are falsely claiming in your edit; there are several mentions and descriptions of the caste system in ancient and medieval India. Your claim that i am stalking you (you made this claim in an edit summary of the main article) is laughable considering that you started editing certain wikipedia pages immediately after i started editing them. I refer now to Daily News and Analysis page and the Open magazine page. Your zeal to try and have the last word on India related pages is particularly amusing considering you have a poor opinion of Indians as reflected by one of your earlier posts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=666714511 Soham321 (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

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.

Template:Z33 Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• I just want to add the above ARBIPA notice is something you need to take serious. That allows any admin to unilaterally enforce a buffet of restrictions that we normally can't do. This includes topic banning your or blocking you. The authority is quite sweeping and the trigger is quite low on these particular topics that have been problem areas for years. You obviously feel strongly about the whole caste subject, but you are a minority on it so far. You need to use the talk page and present your information in a non-confrontational way to win over supporters. Hammering them won't work, and might be seen as disruptive. I tell you this to give you the best chance to avoid sanction, and to at least be able to present your case, but you have to do so in a inoffensive way, or it won't happen at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you have to give this at least a few days to play out. Let the other editors who are interested in this article be given an opportunity to voice their opinion. One editor had originally placed the tag of factual inaccuracy on the article, another had deleted the disputed material on three occasions, and a third has argued and edit warred with Sitush on article which deals with a similar issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hope_Risley). Incidentally, i told this third editor (Kenfyre) on his talk page to take a look at content of the main article and talk page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India I am surprised that this is being held against me in ANI as if i was canvassing. Surely canvassing is permitted if it is a content dispute. Soham321 (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing isn't really allowed, but a singular notification is hardly anything to get excited about. Really, it isn't about me. I'm pretty patient, probably too patient. Right now another admin (and likely others) are looking at your edits and racially charged comments. Your smartest move would be to remove the tag, go to ANI and pledge you will keep it on the talk page and try to develop a consensus and work with others. Really, that is what we are here to do. You win some, you lose some. I have 50k edits, adminship, etc, but I still am in the minority from time to time when editing, and you know what? I suck it up and just accept it. We all have the same "rank" when it comes to editing, and while it isn't "majority rules", consensus is kind of like that, right or wrong. It is simply how the place works. Some people can't work with that, so they get blocked or topic banned. You need to demonstrate you can, or that will end up being your fate. Not so much by my hand, but by one of the 1600 other admins out there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If you can acknowledge and show some signs of acting on the advice above I'd definitely be willing to give you a bit more leeway. This is a topic which attracts a lot of problems with relatively few people attempting to fix them, so admins are generally very heavy-handed because it's hard to keep a lid on things. If you can take the above feedback on board it shouldn't come to that, but persisting the way things have been going will definitely lead to sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed the tag from the main article and i made a note of this in the ANI discussion (and also in the edit summary in the main article) with the comment that the discussion is continuing in the talk page of the article. What else am i supposed to do now? Just look at my recent edits on the talk page of the article and reflect on whether i am contributing to making the main article better or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Caste_system_in_India Soham321 (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You're moving in the right direction. I think the next best move is go and discuss, but to stick to the facts, and as I said before, drop the hyperbole. Using phrases like "lunatic fringe" and talking about the race of the sources is asking for problems (and sanction). Stick to the facts. Right now, you are the only person with your point of view, so being obnoxious isn't a good tactic anyway, nor is bolding quotes. Honestly, they have been giving you good advice on that talk page, use it, and start treating everyone there as an EQUAL, even if you disagree with them. They ARE equals. Most importantly, keep it calm. It doesn't matter how "right" you think you are, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If you can't get along with others in controversial topic areas, you tend to get removed. As Blade noted, admin are very heavy handed in India related topics but with good reason, and with the blessing of Arb Com and the community. Lastly, I'm not sure of your nationality, but here in the US we have an expression: "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Your current methods are off-putting and aren't getting others to even consider your ideas. You don't win converts by telling others that their current beliefs are "lunatic". Tone it back a few notches and engage others instead of being so aggressive; ask more and tell less. Give them a chance to be persuaded, and if they aren't, then you just have to accept it. That is core to the ideals of collaboration and consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, if you think Soham is moving in the right direction, please look again. They are being incredible tendentious and disruptive, and not all of it can be ascribed to being new (partly because they are not, and partly because it has been explained to them but they continue to ignore). This is the sort of behaviour that puts people of editing caste-related articles: walls and walls of irrelevant text and repetition. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to issue one last final warning on this matter. Soham, I'm not as familiar with this subject as Sitush but even I can see that the edits laid out on my talkpage are patently disruptive. I would strongly recommend you find another topic to edit before I or another admin topic bans you and effectively forces you to do so. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to ban me or block me. That is your prerogative as an Admin. I am also free to exercise my right to appeal your decision because you are being unreasonable now in my opinion. I did not respond to Sitush's provocative edit on my talk page, which was written after our interaction on your talk page, and the record shows i have been attempting to build consensus on the talk page of Caste system in India as per this diff: diff1. Furthermore, i have confined my comments to the talk page of the article and have not made a single edit on the main article after receiving a warning. So feel free to ban me or block me, but i will not be told not to even make comments on the talk page of an article, particularly since it was after my comments that certain tags were placed on the main article by other posters and since the record shows i have attempted to build some kind of a consensus on the talk page. Soham321 (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Soham321, you are bludgeoning the issue, saying the same things over and over. You started with a couple of good moves, proper tagging, but you still don't get it. I tried to jump in to give you a day or two to get your act together, but it seems it was wasted time. If you keep beating this dead horse with the same rhetoric, I would support a block of at least one month under discretionary sanctions. Or give it myself. A topic ban would be too much work for the system. And while you are correct in that you can appeal, history has shown that it will fall on deaf ears. The community is sick of the headaches and willing to support strong moves by admin in these Arb related cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I have followed your instruction not to make any edits on the main article. But i am unable to follow any instruction to the effect that i should not make any contribution to the talk page of the article since in my opinion my contributions have been positive. In fact the tags that are being seen on the main article now were placed after my comments on the talk page. Since you seem to have made up your mind, please block me but also let me know how i can take up this matter to the Arbitration Committee after i have been blocked. There have been several allegations in the past of Sitush getting editors who not agree with Sitush blocked or banned by repeatedly complaining to Admins (because Sitush is on friendly terms with many Admins), and many people have protested about this in the past. The allegation is that this is happening particularly in topics related to the Indian caste system. I will take this matter up with ArbCom, and i will give them the supporting diffs. I understand that Sitush has already received a warning from ArbCom in the recent past. Soham321 (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Arb can be found at WP:RFAR but for your own sake, I don't recommend it. And if my mind was made up, you would already be blocked. I'm trying to NOT block you. Like I said, you've made a couple decent moves, but hammering the same points over and over, then sparing with Sitush on another admin's talk page...not good ideas. Again, stick to the facts, or better yet, take a break from the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:Canvas

This edit is a clear violation of WP:CANVAS. Please self revert and post a neutral message. —SpacemanSpiff 00:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware of the prior history surrounding this, but it appears that you've been amply warned by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs) and Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) already. Switching from one form of disruption to another is also not good. —SpacemanSpiff 00:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I made the edit based on the advice of Dennis Brown (talk · contribs). Please take a look at his talk page. Soham321 (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• When you post a notice, you have to be neutral, you aren't trying to sway opinions in that project post. Just say there is a discussion regarding the source for castes in India, and anyone interested in invited to participate. Don't give your opinions or details, just a notification. If the reader can tell your opinion from the posting, then it isn't neutral. You need to learn to make notices neutral, as Spiff is exactly correct, the way you did it is canvassing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the explanation. Soham321 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste system in India - POV pushing by group of editors

Hi there is a discussion here in ANI, which may be of interest to you. Cheers. AB^Talk 16:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

You've done a great job on the talk page of the article. My suggestion is that now you should leave it to others (future editors) to fix this issue. I am not sure if its a good idea for me to participate in the ANI because if I do so you could be penalized for canvassing ( see WP:CANVAS). To avoid being penalized you should have referred to me or my posts in the ANI and then left a neutral comment here ( making no mention of any POV pushing on my talk page) saying you have mentioned me at ANI and that is why I should look at the ANI discussion taking place. If anyone brings up the issue of WP:CANVAS in the ANI, tell them the truth: you are new to this place and are not sure how the canvassing rule operates. If I feel my intervention in the ANI is absolutely necessary I shall intervene.Soham321 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Full citations

Hi Soham, you seem to be having trouble adding full citations to articles. Both the WikiEd and the WYSIWYG editors have buttons for adding citations. If you are unable to find them, please let me know and I can help. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Twobells

Twobells is giving you very poor advice and has now removed my correction on their talk page. Please take note of this. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ha! there is a typo in my linked reponse: the word is, of course, administrator. Sorry about that. - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

And to confuse you even more, Twobells has now changed some of the advice that they gave you and have done so after you had replied. You could easily miss seeing those changes, which is why doing things in that manner is usually considered to be bad practice. It might be better in future if you seek advice from someone with more clue, otherwise you could get very confused and if you're planning to continue editing in the caste-related sphere then that could cause you problems in relation to the sanctions that are enforceable.

If you don't know who to turn to, there is always the helpdesk. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Twobells gave me any advice. Rather, i suggested to him to let me (and two other editors) know when he would be filing the RfC--of course i clarified that i was not certain whether his doing so would constitute canvassing. I also agree with Twobells's criticism about the way the editing on the Caste system in India article has been taking place. Thanks for the link to the helpdesk. Soham321 (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It would constitute canvassing and Twobells did not point that out, despite your query. Their criticism of the editing didn't even relate to the article in question. Anyway, it's up to you: Twobells has been blocked numerous times for edit warring and, amazingly, even tried to get the British Raj article deleted in 2012 - is that the sort of judgement from whom you should be seeking advice? I see it as a short road to a long block, given that the caste sanctions are in force. - Sitush (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, if Twobells indulges in unallowable canvassing, how am i affected? After all, i am not the person who is doing the canvassing. My assessment of Twobells--from what i have seen of him so far-- is that he is a knowledgeable person who has a lot to contribute to this project. I am also impressed with the editing of Kenfyre; i notice you also have a problem with him. Soham321 (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You queried about canvassing and proposed something that might constitute such; Twobells prima facie accepted your proposal and thereby affirmed that it was not canvassing. I assure you, it would be canvassing and, as their history shows, Twobells hasn't got much clue. Similarly, Kenfyre is confused, as everyone has been telling them in their poorly-phrased RfC.

That you seemingly dislike me is fine. However, agreeing with other people because they also oppose me would not make you right. It is weird odd that you are "impressed" seemingly only by people who disagree with me, regardless of the subject, but please remember that consensus is not a vote. I've seen many situations here where one person has "got their way" despite opposition from many others, simply because the sole person understands policy.

Anyway, I'll leave you to it: you'll likely find out the hard way in due course, if you don't get blocked for one of your many copyright violations beforehand. I'll leave, however, with the notice below because this looks like it might become a problem and in any event you need to be aware for your own sake. I apologise if you have seen it before - I think there is a way to check that without trawling through your talk page history but I'm afraid I can't remember how to do it. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why you would imagine that i dislike you. I am actually quite fond of you. Incidentally, i am deleting the template you posted since its getting in the way of our interaction; if you notice a similar template has been posted earlier by an Admin on my talk page. Soham321 (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Adi Shankara and WP:3RR

That's 4 reverts today at Adi Shankara; be a wise man and self-revert. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the warning. Soham321 (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Indent

You can indent your comments by starting a new line with the : sign. Or ad <br> at the end of your previous sentence. Other editors will probably take you more serious when you're able to do such a simple thing.
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The edit you are claiming i did not indent was just a continuation of my own previous edit. I will be indenting my posts in response to another editor, but i shall be continuing to write after my signature if i am just continuing with my edit. Incidentally, i recently wrote a note on the talk page of an ArbCom volunteer (in the recent appeal) who also wrote in the same manner. In other words, he just continued writing after my signature without indenting his response--indicating that this protest that i am not indenting my edit is making a mountain out of a molehill. Soham321 (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

need support

please do delete the speedy contest deletion message from the article and help to make the article in an elegant manner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sridhar_babu_addanki swaroop 07:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakthi swaroop (talk • contribs)

Talk Page Etiquette arbitration case has been declined

This is a courtesy notice to advise that the "Talk Page Etiquette" arbitration case, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined by the committee on account of the fact that it appears to have been withdrawn. Further information is available at the above link. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC).

July 2015

Hello, I'm Ogress. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Cārvāka that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Do not engage in personal attacks against other authors when you do not agree with them. Your declaration that another editor was a Vedantin and therefore unfit to edit a page is inappropriate at best. Ogress _smash! 08:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, I notice your deletion of my edit has already been undone by another editor on the ground that it was not a personal attack which is the truth. In future, if you remove my comments from a talk page without a legitimate reason i shall take you to ANI. Soham321 (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed your edit as it was a personal attack, and I will not be bullied by threats of ANI, which you whip out every time you dislike something. Ogress _smash! 17:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, The fact that it was not a personal attack was agreed upon by Mohanbhan who removed your inappropriate revert of my edit. If you continue to indulge in disruptive behavior, what choice do i have other than to take you to ANI? Your claim that i bully and threaten to take people to ANI whenever i disagree with them is not borne by facts. I will say though that my assessment of you is that you have very little to contribute to the encyclopedia in terms of knowledge at least on pages concerning Indian philosophy. You bring very little to the table. Soham321 (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Soham321, you sure know how not to engage in personal attacks. Ogress _smash! 18:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to consider this a personal attack. It is not. It is my personal view which i am sharing on my personal talk page since you chose to come here uninvited. Soham321 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Treat this as a final warning. You've already been alerted about the Arbcom discretionary sanctions and your behavior across multiple articles and talk pages has been disruptive. If you continue to do so you are likely to be blocked and/or topic banned. —SpacemanSpiff 18:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Arbcom i had interacted with an ArbCom volunteer on his talk page who had agreed that my complaint to ArbCom was an 'error of inexperience' and he would not be holding it against me in future. This is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&diff=669684274&oldid=669683169 By no means of the imagination have i made any personal attack on Ogress as far as i am concerned. If you disagree, and utilize your Admin powers, as you have every right to do, i shall appeal your sanctions against me in the appropriate forum. Soham321 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am specifically not including any filing of arbcom cases as that is entirely within your right, as also your prerogative to appeal any sanctions. You behavior otherwise is what is under question and can be sanctioned. You've been warned and counseled by multiple editors in the past, yet you don't seem to be reducing the disruptive behavior. I'm asking you to do that. —SpacemanSpiff 18:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

the fact that your claim that my behavior across multiple articles and talk pages has been disruptive is patently false is borne out if you see the history on the Jawaharlal Nehru page. All my edits have been accepted on this page even though this is a very disputed article and even the major political parties in India like the Congress and BJP have commented on the editing of this page in the media. As far as the Charvaka article is concerned there is a genuine difference of opinion as can be seen in the talk page of the article. The editors who have warned me on different pages are those who hold views on the subject which are different from mine. There is a genuine intellectual debate taking place which you are trying to stifle through Admin intervention. In my opinion this is detrimental to the Encyclopedia. Content creators have to be protected by Admins rather than threatened. Soham321 (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette again

Soham, Edits and comments like

• If you had any sense you would have stayed away from this discussion. [1],
• Sarah Welch comes across as a Vedantin based on my interaction with her on the talk page of Adi Shankara. [2], and
• I will say though that my assessment of you is that you have very little to contribute to the encyclopedia in terms of knowledge at least on pages concerning Indian philosophy. You bring very little to the table. [3]

are not ok. As you have been advised before, please be more civil and assume good faith when interacting with other editors on article and user talkpages (including your own); and focus on content and sources instead of speculating about other editors' ideology and motivation. I see that you have already been warned about such disruptive conduct, and been made aware of the potential consequences above and so won't repeat that. I hope you'll make greater efforts to be collaborative in the future.
PS: Feel free to get a second opinion about the above listed comments from any experienced editor/admin that you trust, and in fact I highly encourage you to get a mentor to advice you about editing and talk-page conduct. Abecedare (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

All right, i will try to remain more cool during philosophy discussions. I tend to become passionate in philosophy related discussions. Soham321 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC) This applies to the first two diffs that you gave. I see nothing wrong in the third diff you gave because i was responding to what i considered repeated unwarranted allegations against me (and that too on my talk page) by Ogress that i was making personal attacks on her when i was doing no such thing. Soham321 (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not say you were engaging in personal attacks against me until you said I will say though that my assessment of you is that you have very little to contribute to the encyclopedia in terms of knowledge at least on pages concerning Indian philosophy. You bring very little to the table. I very clearly stated you were making a personal attack against Ms Sarah Welch. Ogress _smash! 22:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

My response that you are quoting was after you wrote this:I removed your edit as it was a personal attack, and I will not be bullied by threats of ANI, which you whip out every time you dislike something. You had reverted an edit of mine on the Charvaka talk page on the ground that it constituted a personal attack which i maintain was not a personal attack. Your revert was reverted by another editor (Mohanbhan) who wrote the following words in the edit summary which were addressed to you: It is not a personal attack, he is stating a grievance, do not censor wiki by using strong words Soham321 (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

What "strong words" was I using, exactly, when I said it was a personal attack? Ogress _smash! 22:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I will let Mohanbhan speak for himself (if he wishes to) as to why he used the words 'strong words' but this is your exact edit summary (the capitalization of the words was done by you in the edit summary) when you reverted my edit: Deleting personal attack. DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS.

So obviously that means you were justified in belittling me, as you say above, I see nothing wrong in the third diff you gave. I'll keep that in mind. Ogress _smash! 23:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for belittling you. Even though you were indulging in behavior which i consider to be provocative i agree that i should have refrained from belittling you. Let us be cordial towards each other and work towards improving the Encyclopedia. Soham321 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Caravaka talkpage request

Would you mind moving your question about DC as a source to the this section? I'd be happy to respond there and that way even editors reading the talkpage 2-3 years down the line will be able to make sense of the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea because I do not want editors reading the page 2-3 years from now to imagine that the sources you are giving are the modern, standard sources and that Chattopadhyaya should not be considered a modern, standard source. You are welcome to give your response in the other section if you wish. Soham321 (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your objection to the request but <shrug>... not a big deal either ways. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Your addition to Arun Shourie has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

You have to stop inserting lengthy quotations into articles. We know that you have a history of breaching copyright but simply quoting huge chunks of text is not a way round that problem. Please review WP:COPYRIGHT and, if in doubt, ask. Sitush (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, feel free to take me to the appropriate forum if you feel i have violated copyright. I have not violated copyright; i gave my own paraphrase/summary of the dispute and then i gave a direct quote with the link to the Indian Express article. Soham321 (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you will find that there are several people keeping an eye on you anyway, so the chances are that someone will turn up here to support my opinion. Believe me, you do not want to find yourself at WP:CCI, which is indeed the "correct forum". You will either end up spending the next few weeks doing nothing but checking your own past contributions or you will become so dis-spirited that you will just give up completely. That's the pattern, time and again, and I'd rather try to avoid putting you in that position. You 'cannot just add hundreds of copied characters to an article and assume that by formatting them as quotations they somehow avoid the copyright concerns. Alas, that is what you have been doing across numerous articles. Quotes certainly have a function here but your judgement is way off-course. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion with me. Soham321 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Kautilya3 has given you a goldfish! Goldfish promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day much better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a goldfish, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks for all your efforts in adding to the Jawaharlal Nehru page, especially the new Nehru and Science section.

Give someone a goldfish by adding {{subst:Goldfish}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The goldfish did make my day better.Thank you, Kautilya3. Soham321 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

D. E. Smith

There is no article telling us who he is. What we have is a poor stub full of mini-quotes in Yogesh Khandke style. That tells us how important this now-outdated book was in its time. What we need to know in the context of Jawaharlal Nehru is what qualifies Smith to form such an opinion. That would be, for example, that he is/was a political scientist or a historian. Given that it is 50 years since, it might also be necessary to say that this is an old opinion, ie: something like "In 1965, the political scientist Donald Eugene Smith said that yada yada".

Soham, I am trying and trying to show you how to write well and you simply keep fighting it at every opportunity. I'm not known for a saint-like patience and sooner or later I will snap unless you start to come to your senses. I'd get criticised for that; you would probably end up in a worse position. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I've replied to this, and also pinged you, on the talk page of Jawaharlal Nehru. Please discuss content disputes in the talk page of the main article under dispute.

Hi buddy, try to listen more and talk less. Sitush has more than 10 featured/good articles. We would be lucky to produce one. So, let us try to learn from him rather than to argue. Deal? - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Redlinks

This edit summary is not a reason to remove a link. Please see WP:RED. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)