User talk:Amrapahal Pahanswan

July 2020

Hello and welcome. Please understand Wikipedia is not a social network. Please read What may I not have in my user pages?. If you have any questions about how Wikipedia works, please ask at the Tea House. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amrapahal Pahanswan, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Amrapahal Pahanswan! 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 Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xi Himanshu Kumar, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Fiddle Faddle 16:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Janardan Singh Sigriwal‎, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have added unsourced caste information to a living person after your warning about potential discretionary sanctions. This is unacceptable Fiddle Faddle 16:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibio.in does not meet WP:RS criteria

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alexf^(talk) 16:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Sanjay Singh (Bihar politician), you may be blocked from editing. NitinMlk (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Praxidicae (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at List of Jat people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Any addition you make to this page must be referenced with a reliable source where they state in their own words that they are Jat. Continuing to add names with improper referencing will cause you increasingly longer blocks until one day it is decided that your editing privileges have been blocked indefinitely. You must stop adding this content to Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 14:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If you do not understand how and when to add claims about caste, please do not try adding them in the first place. In one instance that I have just reverted, you added a trivial "controversy" section about people objecting to the alleged casteism of a cricketer yet, if anything, you seem to be promoting such casteism here. Caste can be mentioned but there are rules about doing so. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you also added a copyright violation with this edit elsewhere. I think you have done this before - it must stop. Now. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this makes things even weirder. It is obvious from the edit summary that you are familiar with the requirements of WP:BLP in relation to caste claims yet elsewhere after that date you have added such inappropriate claims where self-identification has not been shown. That is the sort of pattern adopted by caste warriors, ie: people trying to promote their own caste and denigrate others. - Sitush (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this topic ban now applies to you

For persistent disruptive editing in the caste area, I have decided, in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the terms of this community discussion, to impose the following sanction on you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning castes and social groups.

This sanction has been logged at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what "topic banned" means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction to the community at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me on my talk page, before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 18:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen | tålk 18:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I find it especially disruptive that you showed in this edit summary that you know caste in articles requires self-identification, but then you went on to add non-self-identified caste, as if the rule applies to others but not to you. Compare Sitush's post above.[1] Bishonen | tålk 18:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Topic ban violation

It seems you don't understand what a topic ban is. You are not allowed to talk about caste or social groups at all, on any page in Wikipedia. You have violated the ban here. I beg you, please do read WP:TBAN, as you have already been asked to do. It's quite short! If you violate the ban again, you will be blocked. Feel free to ask me on my page first, if you have any doubt about an edit you wish to make. Questions on my page are an exception to your ban. Bishonen | tålk 11:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

July 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Ajay Kumar Singh (Bihar politician), you may be blocked from editing. Sturdyankit (chat) 11:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ajay Kumar Singh (Bihar politician). 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. Sturdyankit (chat) 11:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You continue to violate your topic ban. This is just one example. Don't add people's caste, and don't remove it either; don't have anything to do with castes and social groups. You have been blocked for 48 hours. The next block will be longer. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 12:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Shakti Singh ABVP

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Shakti Singh ABVP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakti Singh (politician). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GPL93 (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Hello, I'm Tayi Arajakate. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pranab Mukherjee, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Arjun Ram Meghwal

added a link pointing to IAS

Haryana

added a link pointing to Hisar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello, I'm Ganbaruby. I noticed that in this edit to Disha Patani, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Asrani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DGP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Your addition to Maharana Pratap has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of List of Bhumihar

The page List of Bhumihar has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

Created by user topic banned from all caste pages

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bishonen | tålk 14:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

You have continued to add/remove people's castes in articles, adding to caste lists, and today even creating a caste list, despite your topic ban from anything to do with caste, and despite subsequent explanations, warnings, and even a block. I give up trying to get you to abide by your topic ban. You have been indefinitely blocked for persistent violations of the ban. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 14:34, 11 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am very sad and I apologize to Wikipedia for my mistake and this won't happen again. I humbly request honourable Wikipedia to unblock me as Editting and adding my information on Wikipedia is the only work I do in my Idle time. I request Bishonen to please unblock me and I also promise Wikipedia and Bishonen for not repeating the sameAmrapahal Pahanswan (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural close, only one request open at a time. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:03, 12 August 2020 (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.

.

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).

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

Request reason:

I humbly request Bishonen to kindly react on the same and give me the last chance for this and won't repeat this act of adding and removing the caste in any Wikipedia ProjectAmrapahal Pahanswan (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per below, competence is required to edit. I tried to get you to answer a very simple question and it took me 5 replies to not even get HALF the answer I was looking for. That, and your replies were poorly formatted and your latest wasn't even signed. If you'd like to get unblocked, you'll need to clearly explain what a topic ban is, what yours includes, why you broke your ban, and why you won't in the future. That will be between you and another administrator however, because I feel this block entirely justified and do not believe you should be unblocked.CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:52, 12 August 2020 (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 would be very satisfied even if I would get a block of 4 Days for this mistake, but I request please don't block me for infinitely. With Regards and Apologise Bishonen and Wikipedia By Amrapahal Pahanswan

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).

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

Request reason:

Respected Administrators I have knew my mistake, please don't block me infinitely. If my mistake is really big I would be satisfied if block is for 4 days to 1 month but please not for infinitely. Amrapahal Pahanswan (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm seeing no understanding below of the questions being asked, and a failure despite multiple requests to explain what the topic ban actually covers. Amrapahal Pahanswan, if you want an unblock request to be successful, you must explain your understanding of your topic ban. Repeatedly saying "Sorry, I won't do it again" doesn't help if you can't tell us what it is you won't do again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was been named for Topic Ban for the use of caste and Social Group in my Wikipedia edit even after Warning and Short time block I mistake to do same mistake due to which I was blocked because I thought that the topic ban was for use of poor sourced reference but later I understand that it was to not mention the topic of caste and social group. I was blocked for publishing article on List of Bhumihars which violates my topic ban. And for this act I apologize to respected Wikipedia Administrators.Amrapahal Pahanswan Sitush (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Way too many admins have been pulling teeth here in order to help this editor come to some kind of understanding about why their behavior led to a block, and these final efforts by Captain Eek are commendable, but have not led to the desired result. If the editor now understands that their topic ban prevents them from "mention[ing] the topic of caste and social group", then they have understood only half of it. All this emphasizes what is evident throughout all these conversations (and let's note that the editor couldn't be bothered to respond here until they were blocked): the editor has neither the competence nor, it seems, the intent to edit collaboratively and according to our guidelines. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2020 (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.

Apology for use of Social Group despite warning

I have understand my mistake and I would never do this act Bishonen Amrapahal Pahanswan (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Amrapahal Pahanswan, You were given a topic ban, multiple warnings, and a short block, yet none of that seemed to work. Why should we believe you this time? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respected CaptainEek I am really sorry please believe in me for the last time. I won't repeat this act at any cost.Amrapahal Pahanswan (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amrapahal Pahanswan, Do you understand why your edits were wrong? Can you explain? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually when I started editing I don't know how to work on Wikipedia and even don't know anything about user page.CaptainEek by Amrapahal Pahanswan (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Amrapahal Pahanswan, Well when we start, nobody knows what they are doing. But you were given a topic ban and multiple warnings about recent conduct. Can you tell me what exactly was wrong about your recent conduct? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek when I was given topic ban I think it was only for not adding Social Group without Self Identification according to WP : BLP BUT then a warning was given by another user, at that time I thought it was for not giving proper Reference.Amrapahal Pahanswan (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC) And my biggest mistake was that I had taken Warnings lightly which behavior I would never repeat CaptainEek Amrapahal Pahanswan (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amrapahal Pahanswan, What do you think your topic ban mandates? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek I think it was due to use of poorly sourced reference for editing someone's social group at the time when it was given to me due to which I start using Self identified sources.Amrapahal Pahanswan (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amrapahal Pahanswan, No, what does your topic ban cover? What does it prevent you from doing? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:33, 12 August 2020 (UTC) It was on use of caste and Social group.CaptainEek[reply]

Comment: The editor shows no competence to participate in this collaborative project. First they conveniently ignored all attempts to communicate with them (despite copies being sent to their email address), then they claimed that they did not understand what the messages were all about, even though our warnings and notices are written in as simple language as possible. For instance, the TBAN notice above says, "Please read WP:TBAN to understand what "topic banned" means", yet the editor clearly did not care to do it or to understand. Given how much time other volunteers had to spend to revert the damage caused by this editor, and that WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED, I think an indefinite block is fully warranted. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek Please give me the last chance, next time if this would happen I would accept the strictest punishment of Wikipedia. But pleas a final chance. Amrapahal Pahanswan (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, make another unblock request that address the issues I raised in my decline, and another admin will deal with it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek Please just for once unblock me this is my assurance to you to not repeat this act.Amrapahal Pahanswan (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amrapahal Pahanswan. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ST47 (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Rana Gurmeet Singh Sodhi

Hello, Amrapahal Pahanswan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rana Gurmeet Singh Sodhi".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi

Hello, Amrapahal Pahanswan. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]