User talk:Devanampriya/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes ~~~ will just sign your username.

I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]

04:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

These links might interest you.

Links for Wikipedians interested in India content

Newcomers: Welcome kit | Register: Indian Wikipedians | Network: Noticeboard (WP:INWNB) Browse: India | Open tasks | Deletions
Contribute content: Wikiportal India - Indian current events (WP:INCE) India collaboration of the week (WP:INCOTW) - Category adoptions


- Ganeshk (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Indian astronomy

Correct. There are some misleading or less recognized information in those articles, you should leave a comment at the talk page once again. So that a consensus can be built. Justicejayant (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment

These pages, for example Dharmachakra are probably made by the users who have focused only upon buddhism, or similar theories, they weren't aware about the pre-buddhist concept or they don't add.

It was suprising how citations are given on that page, still someone would add the [citation needed] tag.

As for Indian Astronomy a particular section has indeed some unknown or contradictory texts, i edited it already. There is obvious role of Indian astronomy towards greek astronomy, but due to many christian invasion, the proofs are lost. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please give your view on dharmachakra talk so we can hopefully wrap up this debate. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough. Nice meeting you. Devanampriya (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Neo-Vedanta & Rajiv Malhotra

Fair: you used the summary that was already in the note - though reworded. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, good sir. Though, I think the current version strays a bit--which I will address there. In any event, I do hope we can work out our other disagreements in the same spirit of civility. Whatever our disagreement may be about accuracy, I do think we both want a good, NPOV encyclopedia. My suggestion is that we initiate a discussion on the hinduism talk page. Since your issue is with the chronology, I think it would save us both time and unnecessary acrimony. Our differences may continue to divide us, but I do hope we can operate on good faith and with collegiality. Good day. Devanampriya (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

AN notice

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Devanampriya keeps reverting at Yoga Page". Thank you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with a Cambridge university source?

Samuel reference is published by Cambridge university. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yoga as Hindu school

Yoga as a Hindu school, has nothing to do with yoga as a whole. You are mixing up 2 different things. There is not one academic book that says yoga originated in Hinduism. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

3RR

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

January 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Dharmacakra. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

Block for Stale/Inactive Edit War. User Reported me in Bad Faith due to ongoing SP/I against him. *I filed an ongoing SP/I against user Joshua Jonathan --here. I was reported by user Joshua Jonathan here in bad faith for a inactive/stale edit war. *I have not edited there in days. *This was an obviously a bad faith edit war report by user JJ for revenge as he himself said he did it after I filed an ongoing SP/I against him that is going poorly for him. He filed this stale edit war report now to get me blocked to sabotage the SP/I against him. *I intend to see the SP/I through to verify the sockpuppeting activity of user Joshua Jonathan and focus on administrative comments related to this SP/I during that time, rather than edit articles (especially the one relating to block). As my edit history shows, I have been focused on the SP/I for the past few days. *Uneven block 48 hours for me 24 hours for (JJ) obvious bad faith reporting user. In 8 years, I have only been blocked ONCE before--and by the same admin. Also, reporting user Joshua Jonathan has been WP:OUTING anon wikipedia users on his talk page--see here. This block serves to sabotage discussion of that, as well as the ongoing SP/I filed against him.Devanampriya ---- (Updated due to below blocking admin: Bbb23 comment): In all civility and politeness, I don't believe it's fair for the admin who blocked me to comment below and characterize me as "combative" (extended talk on the block causing article shows how I start off very polite (even said I wanted to part as friends--it was only bad faith reporting user's bad faith tactics that prevented consensus and resulted in blocks). I am merely pointing out why this block is in error (not to mention stale and filed by editor Joshua Jonathan in knowing bad faith). The same admin who blocked me just commented on my SP/I and characterized it--but said he only read part of the report. I would respond to this--but the uneven block prevents me from commenting in time on the SP/I I filed. So again, I have every desire (and incentive) to be civil, cooperative, and collegial, rather than combative--I have only been blocked 1 other time in 8 years & by same admin. Rebutting inaccuracies and responding to error is not combativeness. The editor who reported me, (JJ), conducted apparent meatpuppetry, SP/I and WP:OUTING of anon editors--it was a serious issue causing polite/collegial editors like me to be serious. Please take this into consideration. Thank you. Respectfully, Devanampriya (talk) 9:04 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0) (Response to below Drmies non-neutral comments): *Drmies appears to be friends with Reporting User Joshua Jonathan. Certainly some prior relationship. *Drmies is not a disinterested party. He has been previously blocked for harassment--only to be unblocked by Bbb23 (who blocked me now). Conflict of Interest in commenting here. *Drmies has unfortunately harassed me (I've had no prior or related interaction with him) on Joshua Jonathan 's behalf here. Drmies advised Joshua Jonathan to conduct this bad faith edit war Report--despite staleness and ongoing SP/I. Naturally Drmies wants to see block stay. *Drmies is now interjecting here on behalf of Joshua Jonathan to make sure my block stays, while JJ's expires. The block is conveniently uneven: JJ 24 hours to my 48 hours. This sabotages ongoing SP/I against Joshua Jonathan, who is accused of Sockpuppety and now WP:OUTING. *Reviewing admins, please be aware that Drmies has a conflict of interest on two grounds, and please take him or other such non-neutral passerby's with a grain of salt. Please Review on the Merits of my Appeal rather than hearsay by non-neutral observers. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC) (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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.

Note to reviewing administrators: The only part above that I actually have some sympathy with is the issue of staleness. I commented on that issue here, but it's still the user's best argument. Unfortunately, the user doesn't just make that argument but, as elsewhere, is needlessly combative.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Devanampriya is combative, and this can be pointed out. Bbb is scrupulously fair: your opponent got blocked too, but they're not crying a river over it. The sooner you realize that you edited against Wikipedia policies, the more you won't ever be blocked again. Note to reviewing administrators: I could have reviewed this unblock request but I won't, since I have faith in Bbb and very little in this editor--note that they continue all these accusations, with the attendant rationale that it's not their own fault. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

I provided detailed information and responded to admin comments above, so I will give a streamlined basis for my unblock appeal below. *This block was never necessary to prevent disruptions--because as the dharmachakra talk shows--I personally took the dispute to DRN to resolve according to wikipedia guidelines * The edit war was stale (even the blocking admin admitted this). So it was not necessary to prevent disruption of wikipedia. * My contribs show I have not even been editing articles the past few days, only commenting on the SP/I I filed. * Continuation of this block actually disrupts wikipedia (since I can't participate in the SP/I I filed to improve wikipedia). * In any event, I understand the importance of following wikipedia guidelines. I intend to make useful contributions that do not disrupt it--but help improve it in a congenial manner. Thank you to any fresh admins who review this. Greater detail available in the first appeal--Respectfully. Devanampriya (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as the block has expired. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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.

DRN request

I've closed your DRN request for multiple reasons. Please see there. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 06:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marathon Man (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) 08:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Indo-Greek kingdom

Which arbcom[1] proceeding you were talking about? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


/Archive 1

/Archive 2

January 2016

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

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

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.[2] 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

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)

Blocked

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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Devanampriya. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Devanampriya/Archive_2&oldid=1146817568"