User talk:Devanampriya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/Archive 1

/Archive 2

January 2016[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kakatiya dynasty. 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Look pal, you can't just give edit warnings when you yourself initiated the edit war and found yourself bound by 3RR. Wikipedia discussions necessitate congeniality and assumption of good faith. I asked why you thought opinion was relevant in a section involving fact. If you are familiar with the content, discuss it. Don't just issue threats. Got it? Devanampriya (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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 abuse[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Retaliatory edit warring templates, obviously copied from the template you received yourself and shot straight back within minutes, is a disruptive trick I've seen many times, and it has never boded well. If you want to come across as remotely "congenial", per your comment to Kautilya3 above, I advise you to avoid it. (Also aggressive phrases like "Got it?" and edit summaries like this.) Bishonen | talk 20:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC).

Any comments on this, which does the same and subsequently insults my handle, or are discretionary sanctions and warnings only selectively applied?Devanampriya (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I now see K had used the same aggressive phrasing, yes, so I no longer blame you for doing it. I might even have said a word about it to him, if he had also used templates aggressively, etc. It's not a big deal in itself. For the rest, I'm not allowed to post a discretionary sanction alert if a user has already received one in the previous 12 months.[1] Nor are these alerts intended to be a sanction in themselves, or insulting in some way. Did you notice where it says "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date"? (Bolding in the original.) If you expect me to take stock of the thing about your username, you had better explain it; I don't speak all the world's languages. I'm sorry my brief parenthesis was the only part of my post you choose to comment on. It wasn't the most important part. Bishonen | talk 05:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC).
Am glad that you see I was merely responding in kind to user Kautilya3 who had initiated uncongenial and aggressive phrasing.I accept your apology and I duly note your point about a 12 month rule for discretionary sanctions alerts.I had been concerned about why only I had received the notice, but now I see your point. Happy we're on the same page now. Good day.Devanampriya (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Bishonen: Thanks for your intervention. I certainly didn't use "got it?" as aggression. It was meant to be friendly and casual, and his mirroring of it as sarcasm. In any case, "responding in kind" is what the problem here is. The response to a revert is not another revert. As per WP:BRD, it is discussion. The response to an edit-warring notice is also supposed to be discussion, not a counter-notice. As long as this user things responding in kind is the proper behaviour, I am sure we will find it hard to work with him. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion requires both parties to explain their actions. Pages are not owned by individuals or groups of friends to stifle dissent, which seems to be the real problem. I have explained my edits a number of times, though no explanation was offered on the content itself by the reverter. Reverting an explained restoration of content is edit warring, and bringing others in to circumvent WP:3RR is not WP:Good Faith or proper behavior. Those who find it hard to work with others should remember that it takes two hands to clap. Anything else need not be said on my talk, which is a personal space, but on the article talk. Devanampriya (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I am afraid you are digging a deeper hole for yourself.
  • "Reverting a restoration of content is edit warring." Please provide a diff that shows that "restoration" was reverted.
  • "Bringing others to circumvent WP:3RR." Please provide a diff that shows that I brought in anybody.
  • "takes two hands to clap." Please provide a diff for where you started a discussion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Learn to respect the requests of other editors, and not comment on personal spaces when told so. This is called collegiality. The editor who reverted my edit in your favour is obviously a friend. No "diff" required--a simple gander of a talk page is all that is needed.
You reverted my restoration of the date for the dynasty's beginning here.
I don't need to start a discussion, I just need to continue it, which I have done both in edit summary and on talk. I have clearly engaged in discussion on article talk, as anyone can clearly see.By continuing to comment here rather than the talk page as I had already ask, you are digging an even deeper hole for yourself. Respect the requests of other editors to leave their private spaces alone.Devanampriya (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
You appear still to be edit warring despite the numerous notices and explanations above. I'm afraid that your time contributing to Wikipedia may be coming to an end unless you change your ways very quickly. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Do not issue threats that will very well boomerang on you.We have had no interaction and you are no admin, so engaging in WP:Hounding will result in ending your time here on Wikipedia if you do not change your ways right away. If you comment here again without official sanction, I will delete it.Devanampriya (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I have commented here precisely once. I don't think that is hounding. However, edit summaries such as this and your repeated insinuations at Talk:Kakatiya dynasty etc that Kautilya3 and Joshua Jonathan are sockpuppets most definitely do constitute personal attacks. I can assure you that the two are not one and, further, that they are not a tag-team (ie: engaging in meatpuppetry). I think it might be time to call Bishonen back here to give you some advice. Perhaps you will accept from her what you clearly will not accept from anyone else. At best, you are being extremely disruptive with your mass reverts; at worst, you are exhibiting an attitude which is almost the antithesis of that required of Wikipedians. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kakatiya dynasty. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. You have a habit of doing mass-reverts to re-insert one piece of info. Please learn to edit in a proper way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Do not comment on my talk page when we are having a discussion on an article page. You made bad faith edits and reverted my own edit. If you comment here again, without official sanction, I will remove it from my page.Devanampriya (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing on Kakatiya dynasty and its talkpage. You have received plenty of advice both about remaining civil and about avoiding edit warring and disruption, and it doesn't seem to be making any difference. The attacks in this edit, including its edit summary, are completely unacceptable. The persistent accusations of "bringing others in to circumvent WP:3RR" and of respectable editors working together to "stifle dissent" are simply unfounded and unevidenced personal attacks. And when a highly experienced editor in this area, User:Sitush, gives you good advice on your page — once — you accuse him of "hounding", because, forsooth, "we have had no interaction and you are no admin". Apparently you think there's no need to listen to or be civil to anyone who is not an admin. You're wrong; that is not the Wikipedia culture at all. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 16:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)