User talk:Bhargavaflame

Bhargava is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA
EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Is reading articals on Wikipedia and giving comments on talk page is a crime that you threaten me with sanctions. What sanctions ? I have not disrupted/spoiled any page. but raised objections to untruth and wrongs on page Bhargava. Is it a crime ? Some of my community members drew my attention to false writings on Bhargava page, so I am here to point out wrongs. I am amazed at what is happening. No one talks of what is right or wrong or if a community is targetted for no reason, probably on whims of a person called sitush. We the Bhargavas are an aggrieved party by your writings, still you warn me with some sanctions.Bhargavaflame (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are demonstrating a consistent failure either to understand or appreciate our policies and guidelines. This is causing you to engage in tendentious editing and to adopt a stance that people sometimes refer to as WP:IDHT. As such, you are being disruptive. - Sitush (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not done a single editing during last 20 days and have been active only on talk pages related to Bhargava, to come to a consensus. So please do not blame me for tendentious and disruptive editings.I have been advised by Kautilya that Sitush is a senior editor specialising in castes and has been solving the issues related to castes in India which remain a contentious issue always. So I'll look for some more relevent citations to convince you on my point and reach consensus on status of Bhargavas.Bhargavaflame (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are taking us round in circles on the article talk page and elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was at ease to discuss everything at talk page of Bhargava, however I find discussions at other places also and I had to get involved there too. I did not start discussions here. I never intended to consume so much valuable time of senior editors, but we are indeed in circles and issue remains unsolved.Bhargavaflame (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the issue is resolved. The problem is that you refuse to accept the outcome. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not for me and my community. We'll see what we can do about it.Bhargavaflame (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Meaning what exactly? I hope that you are not saying that you are speaking on behalf of your community because that could be straying into dangerous territory here. I also hope that you are not implying some sort of legal action. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope the situation of legal action will not arise, though I am searching for your Delhi office address already. I am not an official representative of my community, but as I mentioned earlier, some members of community expressed their pain and did discuss this problem of insuation and denigeration of community on Wiki page of Bhargava. So this process of discussions will continue till truth prevails on Wikipedia.Bhargavaflame (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already referred you to WP:VNT at the article talk page. Please also take careful note of WP:NLT. - Sitush (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see this verifiable citation : http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Zm6dmJ7fXjIC&pg=PA163&dq=hemu+brahmin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TafNUYicNcKr0QWOzoHIAw&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=hemu%20brahmin&f=false;Bhargavaflame (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This book by Nirodh Bhushan :Successors of Sher Shah, https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CfJ0PwAACAAJ confirms that Hemu was a Dhusar Brahmin, part of Gaur Brahmins.Bhargavaflame (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ban from the topic of the Bhargava on all pages of Wikipedia

 * It is quite painful that you put sanctions on my efforts to reach consensus on caste of Bhargavas, whether they are Brahmins or Vaishys. All the sources given in English language, 10 of them, have been rejected as unreliable for different reasons, most of them for the reason of poor English ! Sources written in Hindi of cource, you won't accept here. So for reliablity, the major requirement now is that source should be written in 'chaste English'. I never knew it. I never found this requirement mentioned any where. You should mention this requirement often so that non-English country editors could decide whether to write some thing on Wikipedia at all. By demanding sources in chaste English, you are only making fun of editors and authors from non-English countries, rather than looking seriously for verifiable and reliable sources on any page. If chaste-English is the first requitement for any source, I am afraid, I'll have to withdraw from here as Indian History authors may not have written in British English. Please advise.Bhargavaflame (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The precise thread is here. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Block notice
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for breaching your topic ban re India-Pakistan articles on the page Talk:Bhargava, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Euryalus (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

New violation of your topic ban from Bhargava
Please see User talk:EdJohnston. You edited the Bhargava article on 3 January. Unless you agree to stop this behavior, you may be blocked again to enforce the topic ban. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)