User talk:Satyashodak

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Meenas. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for this message. I am trying to prevent this "edit war". Please my notes on the Discussion Page. The other editor is not following rules. Tags should not be removed without providing satisfactory arguments on the discussion page. Kindly enforce the rules about removing tags. I have already used to talk page but the other editor is not following any rules. Kindly advise how this article can be made more accurate within wikipedia rules--Satyashodak (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)--Satyashodak (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

meenas[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Meenas. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kingturtle (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archives[edit]

Satyashodak, archiving does not make issues "go away", it's just moving older messages to another page. There is no need to keep messages from four years ago on the main talkpage. If you feel that the issues are still unresolved, then please start a new thread. You can easily provide a pointer to the previous discussions in archives. --El on ka 02:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, I am surprised you are showing such zeal to archive the issues that just got started last week. Kindly allow discussion. --Satyashodak (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not archive the issues from last week. I moved the threads. Older threads go at the top, newer threads at the bottom. All recent discussions are still there. --El on ka 20:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonal Shah vs Vijay Prashad[edit]

YOu might also look at extremist accusations levelled by Prashad in Hindu Students Council here that's repeatedly been placed there by User:Relata refero.70.112.6.56 (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.There is documentary evidence of his sympathies with FARC, a Columbian terrorist group. Watch and contribute on Vijay Prashad article. Regards.--Satyashodak (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Cheers, Jayen 466 12:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Mitsube (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this applies more to you than me. I have already referred this dispute to the moderators. --Satyashodak (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have left in the partisan views you added, so please show me the same respect by not imputing views to sources when they are not there. Also do not delete cited material such as "the rig veda mentions life after death in heaven with ancestors." Thanks. Mitsube (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is partison and what is not - let this be intepreted according to wiki rules. Saveral of your edits are in clear violation of wiki guidelines. I have respect for you personally but will not be able say the same about the edits which violate wiki policies and seek to wilfully denigrate the other tradition with which you seem to have some sort of personal feud for some reason. Thanks.--Satyashodak (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moderating disputes[edit]

I am not particularly skilled in moderating these sorts of disputes. May I recommend that you seek help from WP:DR where there ARE many options for seeking people who can help with these sorts of things? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsube's issue...[edit]

Please kindly check User_talk:Mitsube#Very_bad_editing_style.... Thanks. NazarK (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This fellow is most likely a Sinhalese nationalist and Buddhist chauvinist from Sri Lanka. I did not have to time to spend on Hinduism and Buddhism article on which he has done a good hit job against Hindu sources twisting wiki rules. I am surprised and shocked to see this kind of aggresive and openly hostile intent of his edits with no effort conceal lack of neutrality. I myself am a follower of Japanese Mahayana Buddhist school and go to Zendo almost every other Sunday. The kind of hate he expresses in his edits for Hindu sources could have only developed in the Tamil/Sinhalese political cauldron of Sri Lanka. My two cents.--Satyashodak (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, do not insult other editors again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsube's edits are skilled and directed at improving the quality of Wikipedia. However, he lacks respect for constructive efforts of other editors and his way of removing inclusions can be characterized as over-aggressive and premature if viewed from the perspective of gradual step by step article evolution. Since he addresses the issues from his area of specialization, his removals are often hitting hard the editors concerned with presenting an alternative point of view in a particular article... Mitsube's removals lack flexibility and broader vision of how the information can be useful to the consumer. The above qualities are natural for a man of his type and can only be changed through continued self-improvement. Since that is not likely to happen in the nearest time, I suggest leave him be. His skill is too high and certain usefulness of his edits can not be refuted. NazarK (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and Hinduism[edit]

I think you need to re-consider your major reversion to the Buddhism and Hinduism article. While I understand that you take issue with some of the material that Mitsube has added or removed, your reversion eliminates a large amounts of sourced material, and in some cases removes sources for otherwise unreferenced statements in the article. Reversion is not meant to be used for this sort of situation. Please discuss the specific additions and removals that you have issue with on the Talk page. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have time and again requested neutral moderation for this article. Unfortunately, it has fallen on deaf ears with the result that his article has been abused for hostile propaganda by Buddhist chauvinists against Hindu/Vedantic sources. A large amount of the edits you were referring to did not show any respect for NPOV. I have restored a lot of edits by humming bird which were well-intentioned and properly sourced. Others will be restored progressively.--Satyashodak (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you identify which particular version of the article you were reverting to? It's very hard to assess a single revert of that size. Several of the edits I saw wiped out in your revert were fairly sourced from academic publications. My concern is that edits of this type are being removed in this kind of mass revert. The correct procedure in this case is to remove the specific elements that you object to, or make a case on talk for what should be done. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humming bird has not added statements to that article followed by a reference to a source. I however have explained my edits quite clearly and I invite you to go through the edit history and examine each diff with the edit summary. Feel free further to check any of the material I have added to confirm that I have conveyed the original scholarly source accurately. Mitsube (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute tag[edit]

A dispute tag requires a discussion about what in particular you are disputing. I see no discussion at Talk:Buddhism and Hinduism. This is about a single reversion. And this is you announcing that you've placed a tag, not what's the issue. Now, discuss at the talk page exactly what is your concern. Also note: you will not commit another personal attack like you did here. One more line about "Buddhist chauvinists" and I'm giving you a week off. Last and final warning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Buddhism_and_Hinduism about your edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One last try[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

My unblock request has been declined three times on my main account despite the fact that I have come totally clean and shown total honesty and willingness to make amends of any perceived wikipedia rule violation. I am giving it my last shot on this account after which I will cease and desist from further unblock requests. I guess I have overstayed my welcome and it is time for me to leave wikipedia community for sometime. When the season of forgiveness, calmness and reconciliation prevails again, you could email me at Internet.Scholar@gmail.com with the invitation to rejoin the community. If I leave this community now then the loss would be mutual because I had a lot to contribute and to learn from. I joined wikipedia only 8 months ago and was still testing the waters here for most part. I think I had contributed with patience and responsibility for most part. I ask forgiveness from those whom I may have wronged inadvertently and extend the same to those who treated me unjustly. I will probably not create a new account to contribute again because I respect wikipedia and will contribute with a sense of responsibility and ownership if I ever contribute again. Mitsube and Clay Collier, sorry if I offended you. Maybe it was time for me to leave and practice Budhhachita. I enjoyed our fiesty exchanges back in December though. Note: If I am not unblocked again, please treat this unblock request as my wikipedia obituary. Kind regards. Internet Scholar/History Sleuth/Satyashodak--Satyashodak (talk) 9:14 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

I appreciate your willingness to reform your editing habits and to contribute constructively to the project. When your block expires on 11 May 2009, you are free to make good on your promises. In the meanwhile, I think it's best for all if we leave YellowMonkey's block to expire of its own accord. My best, AGK 23:20, 7 May 2009 (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.

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]