User talk:SalariaRajput

Saini article & blanking your talk page

I note that you have blanked your talk page, which contained prior comments regarding your poor edits to the Saini article. You are, of course, allowed to do that but please be aware that doing so constitutes acknowledgement by you that the blanked contents were read.

Regarding your further edits to the Saini article since those initial messages, please do remember what the blanked content said. You are continuing to reinstate poor quality material. For example, Mahabharata is not a reliable source, your insistence that all modern day Sainis are landowners is simply not verified by the source (& contradicts the next paragraph in the article), and Talk:Saini carries several threads explaining that the connection between the modern day Saini community and the ancient Shoorsaini tribe etc has not been verified ... so why reinstate the sources that fail to verify it? - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please self-revert at Saini and check the thread near to the bottom of the talk page for that article. If you want to change the title of that section then discuss the issue there first. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the thread is this one. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Your recent editing history at Saini shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I was unaware of three-revert rule. Thanks for telling me. I will take care in future.

Whatever i have added in Saini article is added with reference and explanation. I have done right editing and even discussed on talk page, whenever required, as you well know. If you have power to block new users, dont misuse it. Use it in proper way. I have not gone through edit war, rather you are going through edit war. Why dont you give warning yourself, who also engaged in edit war.SalariaRajput (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at List of Saini people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sitush (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been advised before that entries such as the one you made should demonstrate that the person has self-identified. It is completely irrelevant that a caste organisation "claims" someone to be of their community. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated some content that it was most inappropriate for you to remove. Lead sections summarise an article and, as such, we cannot show a one-sided claim & your edit summary saying that it was in the "wrong place" as the issue is dealt with in the Distribution section is plain wrong. You have previously been warned about edit warring and the sanctions that are in place, and you know also about the specific issues surrounding the lead and this content from the talk page discussions. I'll remind you again. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions.

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about the sanctions applicable to these articles, and have continued to edit-war against several other editors on the article Saini. Once your block is lifted, you need to discuss your content dispute on the article's Talk page, but *not* edit-war back to your preferred version until the discussion concludes and you gain a consensus to support you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen what message Sitush has send to you. He is totally saying wrong. This matter is never discussed on talk page. Moreover that place was very wrong where the Sitush was adding information. Same information in same articles should not be add twiced. It should be added where it should be. Have you seen what the matter was? I dont think you have seen. You have simply blocked me on request made by sitush to you. This is very wrong. You should see my edit and then you should think who was right & who was wrong. You should block Sitush rather me. I will complaint against you. You are not neutral administrator.SalariaRajput (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I had seen what message Sitush has send to you. He is totally saying wrong. This matter is never discussed on talk page. Moreover that place was very wrong where the Sitush was adding information. Same information in same articles should not be add twiced. It should be added where it should be. Have you seen what the matter was? I dont think you have seen. You have simply blocked me on request made by sitush to you. This is very wrong. You should see my edit and then you should think who was right & who was wrong. You should block Sitush rather me. You are not neutral administrator. SalariaRajput (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're now blocked for block evasion instead of just edit-warring (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 24 April 2012 (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.

I refer you both to the numerous warnings - visible and deleted - on this talk page and also to several threads, including Talk:Saini#Are_Sainis_Rajputs.3F, on the article talk page. You are consistently pushing a POV regarding Sainis across numerous articles and in my opinion you have been fortunate to have received only a 48 hour block. I know some admins who would have given you a month or more, and perhaps even banned you from the article per the sanctions that are available to them. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are switching here the another discussion, which is not related to the current discussion. The link which you provided is this Talk:Saini#Are_Sainis_Rajputs.3F. You are not showing here the correct matter bcoz of you had appealed Boing to block me. Our matter of of Sainis distribution, not of Sainis are Rajputs i.e., which you are showing here. And recently i have not made any changes to Sainis-Rajputs status, which you are trying to show here. Be honest to show here what the matter is. I am very much unfortunate that i am blocked here even i have done any wrong editing. You are very fortunate rather me, who always doing wrong editing... and never have been blocked.SalariaRajput (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that the problem may in fact be your less than optimal comprehension of the English language. You have misunderstood the context of the statement that you removed and quite clearly have also not comprehended the discussion on the talk page. If English is not your first language then you may find it easier to contribute to a version of Wikipedia that is written in your native tongue. There are, for example, numerous Indic language Wikipedias, including Hindi, Marathi and Tamil. - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just want to make the point that you are not blocked because I have sided with anyone over the content dispute - I have no idea who is right or wrong about that. You are blocked for edit-warring against more than one other editor over a period of several weeks now, and you must not edit-war even if you are right. What is needed is a proper discussion on the article talk page (like the one that is happening here), and for you to wait until a consensus is achieved before reinstating your changes again (and only doing that if you actually do get a supporting consensus). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]