User talk:ArvindPalaskar

ArvindPalaskar, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ArvindPalaskar! 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

16:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hello, I'm Nnadigoodluck. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Balatonszentgyörgy—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You both are making no sense with your reverts without even looking at what is being modified.

ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- SUN EYE 1 17:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Three Warfares

Hello! Your submission of Three Warfares at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive

Hi Arvind, that was an impressive post, as the book was published just the day before! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello ArvindPalaskar, You're probably already aware but if not I've undone your closure at ANI, Generally speaking ANI threads shouldn't be closed within an or 2 of being "resolved" as those who get blocked occasionally will sock etc or once unblocked can come back and cause more issues which would require admin intervention,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Three Warfares

Hello! Your submission of Three Warfares at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Unless you can come up with a new hook for this nomination, it will be closed as unsuccessful. Please respond on the template ASAP. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, ArvindPalaskar. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Three Warfares.
Message added 15:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2020 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! -- Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Far-right politics in Ukraine".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

~Asarlaí 21:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a case in which you are a party being opened for discussion. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Far-right politics in Ukraine".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Renat 13:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of tallest buildings in Pune, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ravet. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Shambuka

A discussion about the lead sentence is on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Shambuka. Request your inputs. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shambuka reverts

You are not engaging in the discussion, you are not justifying your edits, you reverted a half dozen edits unrelated to the RfC, and you're removing the tag that explains that there is an ongoing dispute over the first sentence -- which after a failed RfC is undeniable.

These actions do not move us toward consensus. Please engage with the discussion so that your views can be better reflected. If you have any source that describes Shambuka as an "Interpolated character", please provide it.

Carleas (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Shambuka) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I made 3 reverts on 11 January but made zero reverts on 12 January because I was not willing to edit war anymore. I agree that I did edit warring but in order to completely address this concern that I can promise to make 0 reverts for next 2 weeks on Shambuka even if the edit is vandalism. Thanks. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ArvindPalaskar, you have edited the article about Shambuka 15 times during the last years, reaching back to October 2020, and every edit you made there was a revert: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].

I hope that future edits to the same article would be more productive; my current view is that the article would likely benefit from others being able to provide their contributions without your interference for a while. The talk page is still open and you can always request changes using {{edit partially-blocked}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: But you can see my regular participation on talk page throughout those reverts and I was abiding by the consensus. Many of those reverts concerned this SPA who edits nothing else.

Since I have promised not to edit the article as a whole for next two weeks, I hope you can grant me unblock. This is my first block after all in 4 years of active editing. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding, there is explicitly "no clear consensus" at the moment. Phule lulu has been editing Wikipedia for over 6 years now; this isn't an account created for the sole purpose of editing that article, just as you are not a "Tallest buildings" SPA. They have been warned for edit warring 2 days ago and not continued since, but extended-confirmed protection may help if relatively inexperienced users persistently cause disruption when editing the article. This has yet to be observed; the article is semi-protected for a year for now.

Regarding unblocking, I understand the idea, but I see no benefit in not just waiting for the block to expire instead of trading a technical guarantee for a promise. You can still edit its talk page, too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: But "no consensus" means pre-RfC version should be retained just like it is with AfD when "no consensus" means article is defaulted to keep. You can see that the recent edit warring is happening against that very RfC result despite it was also told on DRN as well that only proper consensus can overturn that result. But even after that, the edit warring is happening and I was only restoring the WP:STATUSQUO. I would request you again to unblock me because the block is no longer preventative given my promise not to edit the article for next 2 weeks. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was no consensus for the pre-RfC version to be retained, and we encourage people to be bold when editing, not to seek a consensus before each new change to an article. Interpreting a "no clear consensus" RfC as a mandate for reverting and reverting and reverting is incorrect.

The block prevents you from breaking the promise. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Yes the consensus for pre-RfC version was formed for years with multiple discussions.[16][17] That's why RfC was used to overturn it but it was closed as "no consensus". Now why the version should be unilaterally changed without forming proper consensus?

If I violated unblocking terms then you can re-block me. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC result isn't "no clear consensus for changing the status quo", the RfC result is "no clear consensus for either option 1 or option 2". Consensus can change, and this recent (December 2023) state of the discussion doesn't seem to justify any reverts to me. Edit warring is prohibited and "restoring a status quo" is not an exception.

As explained above, I personally won't unblock. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited List of tallest buildings in Mumbai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marine Drive.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Shambuka

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]