User talk:Nitish.massey

Welcome!

Hello, Nitish.massey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page List of Indian Christians have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Sitush (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Your recent editing history at List of Indian Christians shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Sitush (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is the other way round were my material contributions with genuine citations have been edited time and again. i agree that citations are required but most of the names added by me have their independent wikipages/articles with specific reference that they are Christians, I fail to understand then how is this non compliance with the policies.Nitish.massey

let me add i have seen your activities on wikipedia, you have been sedulously editing a lot of articles/pages on a daily basis most of which are related to caste and religion in India. innuendo being that you are politically motivated.Nitish.massey

one question are you an authorized wikipedia representative ?? as you have been  using the term "our policies" in our aforementioned interactions.Nitish.massey

Nitish.massey, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Nitish.massey! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

thanks

Sanctions alert

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 that 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.

- Sitush (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Sitush you fake, i thought you were gone, btw your name figures on the 'wikipedia users who are not wikipedians' better explain that to the arbitration committee and dont ever brandish me these threats in future . Am a qualified lawyer with years of practice, you are functioning of Wikipedia with ill and oblique motives which are biased and past activities qualify for your dismissal besides other legal action after tracing your true identity and IP address. Probably this is the reason you did not dare to post this of the talk page of "list of Indian Christians" Your activities are highly doubtfull and against the very spirit of wikipedia. I have seen your activities in the past however have restrained from taking any action. I call upon you to cease and desist with immediate effect from continuing in such activities in future, failing which i shall be constrained to intimate appropriate remedies.

Btw in your past conduct you have been impersonating as an wikipedia administrator/representaive which is enough to take legal actions against you. Therefore treat this as a Serious Matter( a piece of advice)

I see that after my past notice you have deleted your "view history" this is self incriminatory and a legal offence.

In case you are considering making an unblock appeal, let me explain a few things to you...

Re: "wikipedia users who are not wikipedians", that was a self-created thing a number of editors did some time ago related to an old dispute, and they added that category themselves - it is not an admonishment of any kind.
I see nowhere where Sitush has tried to impersonate an administrator, and you must not make unsupported accusations like that.
Re: "you have deleted your "view history" this is self incriminatory and a legal offence". I see nowhere where Sitush has tried to hide his history. Editors are allowed to remove things from their talk pages (although Sitush does not appear to have done that - other than to archive old discussions, which is standard practice), and it is not in any way "self incriminatory" or a "legal offence". Everything is still in the "View history" tabs of all of the relevant pages.
If you have a disagreement over the content of the article, there are acceptable ways to pursue it, but those do not include making all-out attacks on the other parties, with threats of legal action especially prohibited.
Informing you that the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is not a threat, it is purely informative and for your benefit - editors working in those subject areas need to know that such sanctions are authorised.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the impersonating an administrator bit arises from a lack of understanding of how wikipedia works and/or the English language. In this discussion [1] Nitish.massey first asks 'one question are you an authorized wikipedia representative ?? as you have been using the term "our policies" in our aforementioned interactions.' This is followed later by 'Btw in your past conduct you have been impersonating as an wikipedia administrator/representaive which is enough to take legal actions against you'.

It sounds to me like Nitish.massey thinks referring to "our policies" ,eans the editor is saying they are an official representative of wikipedia or an administrator. This is wrong for several reasons. Nearly all policies come from the (en.)wikipedia community. They therefore belong to everyone here, including Sitush and Nitish.massey if Nitish.massey wishes to return. So they are "our policies" to everyone. Referring to them as "our policies" simply acknowledges that we're all part of the wikipedia community, it doesn't in any way imply someone is an official representative or an administrator. Administrators have special tools, but no special powers to formulate policies. There is no such thing as an official representative of wikipedia. There is such a thing an official representative of the Wikimedia Foundation, but that's a different thing. Even if you're referring to WMF policies, it's still resonable to refer to them as "our policies" in many cases anyway since they are also policies we as the community must abide by.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that certainly sounds plausible - hopefully that explanation will help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. Please stop these threats, and discuss content disputes in a civil manner. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for issuing legals threats and making personal attacks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

In reply I say that There has been no ”threat to take legal action”. Words “Self incriminating” and “offence” do not mean legal threat. Threat if any was to report the abuse by user sitush to Wikipedia. Which I had infact done by requesting arbitration. the issues raised in my dispute resolution request on the page “list of Indian Christians” has not been addressed till now . 2) sitush has been actively editing pages involving caste and religion in India which give rise to a genuine bonafide presumption that a particular user is doing it on a personal campaign as such activities are a very common phenomenon in the Indian subcontinent where people spread disinformation on caste and religious lines for political motives/ideologies and interest. In bonafide belief the statements made cannot be hence considered as making personal attacks or legal threats. Besides being new to Wikipedia I am still struggling to figure out that how can this be reported. 3)I plead ignorance of the fact that 'Wikipedia users which are not wikipedians' was a self created group but the impression I got was that it is a warning page of non genuine users whose activities are doubtful. further I may have misjudged the edit of history being a new user but admittedly there were some archived edits. 4) The arbitration decision is non complaint with the scheme of new users. Me being a new user qualify to avail his benefit.

Decline reason:

There's a very clear threat to take legal action, "Am a qualified lawyer with years of practice, you are functioning of Wikipedia with ill and oblique motives which are biased and past activities qualify for your dismissal besides other legal action after tracing your true identity and IP address" and "in your past conduct you have been impersonating as an wikipedia administrator/representaive which is enough to take legal actions against you". As you have not unconditionally withdrawn this threat, the rest of your unblock request is irrelevant. The fact that you have also engaged in personal attacks (for example, "thanks Sitush you fake", etc.) means even if you did withdraw your legal threats, that probably would be enough to leave you blocked, too. Yamla (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2017 (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.

As you have been using this page to post extensive blatant dishonest personal attacks on another Wikipedia editor (which I have removed, but the next reviewing admin will be able to see them), culled from various hate source and blogs, I have removed your ability to edit this page. I do not know what your connection is with those sources or with the people who wrote them (or the people who promote them), but attacks like those are absolutely unacceptable here and people who propagate them are not welcome. If whoever reviews your current unblock request disagrees with me, they are welcome to restore your talk page privileges, but if not and your request is declined, you will need to take any further appeals to WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]