User talk:Bill clinton history

July 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (Bill clinton history) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it is the name of a well-known American president. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

i think it not voilate any policy of wikipedia.morever i am not defaming any body .i have adopted a name only as a name.any person should be free from adopting any name in respectable form in real life or as a username.it also suits the democratic ethos of globalised world and particularly wikipedia.Bill clinton history (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated
I like your new edits at the Ahir article. Please keep up the good work!!! -MangoWong (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I find that you are having some issues at the Ahir talk page. Here are some points that came to my mind. It is about the misuse of the word "Shu***" in that article. I think that word should NOT be anywhere in that article. When someone writes an article on "Earth", there is usually no need to say anything about "Flat earth theory", because the earth is not flat!!!! We all know that much. If someone wants to talk about the "Flat Earth theory" in the article about "Earth", they would have to establish that the Earth is flat or that there are a large number of  contemporary  scientists who think that the Earth is flat!!!! If they can’t do that, it can’t be mentioned in that article. Saying that a large number of people used to think in the past that the Earth is flat is not enough, and is of no use. As simple as that. WP:FRINGE (please click through the link and read it). Similarly, the Ahirs are not regarded as "Shu***" by anyone in the present world. If nobody regards Ahirs as "Shu***" in the  present world , the word need not get any mention in the article on "Ahir". If anyone wants to mention this word in the article on "Ahir", you can challange them to prove that the Ahirs are regarded as "Shu***" in the  present world . Moreover, you can also challenge them to prove that Ahirs "were" “Shu***”. They were not. They were people. Nobody in the present world says that the Ahirs of past "were" “Shu***”. What others of that time may have said does not matter. If the people of present think that people of past were mistaken, they "were" mistaken. And this is what matters. If they cannot prove that the Ahirs of past "were"  “Shudra”,  your argument should prevail. I think nobody can prove this. What they were regarded as by others does not matter. You can use this argument if you want. But there is no assurance that it will be accepted easily. If you want, you can use it, and if the argument be correct, you should be able to have your opinion prevail. I hope you do not mind me dropping in here from time to time. And if you argue this point, make absolutely sure that you do not say anything even remotely insulting or do not make any sort of threats. Even if others misbehave, keep your cool. People might try to trick you into misbehaving by themselves saying something offensive to you, so that they can get you blocked. It's a trap. And please don't violate the "3RR" under any circumstances. Folks may also try to trick you into doing that. 3RR means you cannot revert anything more than 3 times within a 24 hour period. If you can do this much, then we will see... You can also come to my talk page and drop comments whenever you like. It may be that your opponents can violate all the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and still go scot free. But you can't. But you need not do so!!!! You can still see your opinion prevail without breaking any policies!!! If you want to practice your editing skills or anything, you can also create a personal sandbox by clicking on this red link User:Bill clinton history/Sandbox. This sandbox will also have a talkpage and you can create that too. I can also create them for you if you want. With best regards....-MangoWong (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Automatic footnote generator
Hey Bill, you might find it a great timesaver to use http://reftag.appspot.com to format your footnotes from GoogleBooks. Whenever you find something on gBooks you like, just copy the URL from your browser bar and put it into the entry box at RefTag. The only catch is that if you're using Snippet View, or if you scroll down in Preview/Full to a page other than the one you landed on, RefTag might not fill in the page numbers right, so make sure you observe your page# so you can enter it manually and update the result as needed. Hope you find this a useful tool. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Careful of manipulators, keep doing the good work you're doing
Greetings Bill, I appreciate that you are interested in seriously improving caste articles and bringing them to WP standards, and that you have inadvertently found yourself in a very controversial topic that is frustrating to work on. I would caution you against the goading of TT2011 and particularly MangoWong (fresh off a block). MangoWong has shown a clear pattern of trying to get other editors to fight his fights for him; note on Talk:Yadav he makes allegations worthy of an WP:ANI report, but then refuses to make them himself, but encourages you to make one. You'll note MW does very, very little constructive work on articles himself, but hangs about Talk pages adding hostility, and goading others into fights. To make an analogy: he's that guy at the corner pub sidling up to his "friends" and saying "Oi Ted, did you hear what that bloke said about your mother? You're not gonna stand for that, are you???" He's a cheerleader for conflict, and I'm probably remiss in not having an ANI on him already.

I hope you will agree that Sitush and I, though not always agreeing with you, are being civil and taking your suggestions seriously, reading your refs and commenting, etc. Caste is a tricky topic, and learning WP procedure is difficult, but provided we can tune out those people who are here to "have fun" fighting instead of being helpful, I'm sure we can work with you to get good work done, and before long you'll be an experienced editor who knows how to navigate controversy. This is a bit of "baptism by fire" to start out in such a rough area, but both Sitush and I are happy to work with you as long as we're all civil and using proper sourcing and format. Thanks for your positive spirit, MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is to inform you that have been mentioned on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for a incident you may have been involved into. Please feel free to add your comments. I have pasted the link below to take you to the site directly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=purge#Another_proposal

Nameisnotimportant (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

ear bill may i know in which part of world yadavs are called shudra???? i mean if cowherding is what makes them shudra??? than what u expected people to do thn???? sit on computer and right crap about the community which have had such glorified history....were these so called upper CASTE bhramins ,rajputs were what engineers,doctors,scientists ???? i mean these guys wud hv been doin the same kind of occupation be it animal husbandry or farming...in earlier days the more number of cows some one had the more powerfulwas he called.....as now its been replaced with the lands.....so how can be some one who was involved in cow hearding can be shudra??? and talkin bout the modern india,than let me tell yadav guys are ahead in evry field than so called upper caste.... so its my request to bring a change in yadav wiki and gv them their kshatrya status..thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaykumarrana (talk • contribs) 09:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus
Please read WP:CONSENSUS, because I don't see any evidence that consensus was reached on the varna issue on Talk:Yadav. You'll note that I am involved in the talk there (though not as extensively as others), and specifically told MW that he needs a better explanation than "meaningless". Qwyrxian (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My contention is "misleading", not "meaningless".-MangoWong (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See Dispute_resolution_noticeboard - Sitush (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove the content again until the matter is settled at WP:DRN. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion there. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Apology for the spelling mistake!
Hello, I mentioned Your User name in the revision history of Jat people, but by mistake, (unfortunately, I was in a hurry to edit several articles) I wrote the spellings of Your User name wrongly (but un-intentionally). Please accept my apologies for that. Thanks! Sincerely: -- Abstruce ( Talk ) 10:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
Bill, you have been told several times that this is at WP:DRN. You have been told not to remove it until the DRN process is complete. Nonetheless, you do in fact keep removing it. Stop, please.'' Sitush (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Another thing is that some users themselves keep indulging in edit wars etc. but perpetrate a warningavalanche(flooding up the talk page with warning signs) on the usertalk pages of their opponents in order to discredit them and to get them blocked. And there is no reason for synthesis and misleading info to stay while we discuss it at DRN.-MangoWong (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)And Sitush, stop issuing threats of blocking without further notice. It can have an unnecessary chilling effect on new users.-MangoWong (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Bill, if you think that someone is threatening you in an unnecessary and overbearing way, you can complain at WP:ANI.-MangoWong (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Behaving in an unnecessarily threatening way with new users is against WP:BITE, WP:BULLY, WP:CIVIL IMO. If someone is placing an unnecessary warning sign on your talk page, you can also place a warning sign on their talk page and ask them to stop trying to blackball (and thereby preparing the stage to get them blocked) others by placing unnecessary warning signs.-MangoWong (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Sitush (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

DRN scope
Bill clinton history, I have noticed that you want to discuss Ahirs and Abhira and other sources etc. at the DRN. I have some experience in these discussions and please trust me that these issues are not within the scope of the present DRN. It is only about the sentence in question + about the sources which support it. Other things are irrelevant. If other things are brought up there, entire discussion will lose focus and then someone will just close it saying that it has lost direction. There will be no outcome and this is what some guys want. Please trust me, and don't talk about other things. The only issues to be discussed there are whether the sentence is a synthesis or not+ whether it is misleading or not+ whether the four sources are proper or not. If the discussion goes off in some other direction, others will claim that the discussion has lost focus and ask that it be closed. Actually, they already seem to be doing so on the talk page of the DRN. Please don't talk about other things and talk about the sentence in question and its sources only. Whether it is synthesis/misleading etc. Otherwise the entire effort will become useless.-MangoWong (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC) If the discussion gets closed because it has lost focus, they will claim that the sentence is not synthesis and is not misleading.-MangoWong (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the sentence gets identified as synthesis, there would be no chance of reinserting it.-MangoWong (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have had enough
Sorry, but I have had enough. We have tried to explain things so patiently, over so long, and you still are not getting it. You have been involved on various noticeboards and have singularly failed to make your case. Consequently, I have referred the situation to WP:3RRN. I do not want to see you blocked but this is plain disruptive now. - Sitush (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Yadav
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Yadav. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Bill, just a note to say that I really do regret that things came to this. I am unsure whether you would have done the things which you have done recently if others had not fed you with poor advice regarding policies etc, and if you had not chosen to follow that rather than the abundance of people saying the opposite. However, no hard feelings. When you return then you will be more than welcome to start or continue discussions and to edit the various articles. These blocks are never intended as a punishment but rather to bring a period of stability to the project and to provide the person blocked with some breathing space to stand back and reconsider their position. However, they are usually "escalating", so if you return and resume warring then your next block will be for a longer period.


 * Hopefully, the fact that another uninvolved user - EdJohnston - has clearly taken the time to investigate and explain the goings-on in some detail (as per their block decision linked to above) might provide you with further evidence that, like it or not, Wikipedia operates in a way that is somewhat different to that which you appear to believe.


 * Again, my sincere regret. Hope to have you back with us in a few hours' time. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Renewed edit warring at Yadav
Soon after the expiry of your 31-hour block for edit warring at Yadav, you have gone back in and continued to revert mention of the source by fr:Christophe Jaffrelot, that was mentioned in the closure of the last 3RR report on 17 August. If you believe that you have consensus to remove the reference to Jaffrelot, please give us the name of anyone who supports your edit. It seems likely that you may be blocked for a much longer time if you are only here on Wikipedia to push your point of view about castes. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Yadav. 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. In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * Bill, both myself and have been incredibly tolerant of your inability to verify that the modern Yadavs are the same people referred to way back when as Yadava. This is despite you being completely unable to find a single reliable source for your assertion. Well, no more. Your continued reverts are becoming disruptive and there is a perfectly valid citation in the article which specifically says that the connection between the two communities was invented by Yadavs seeking to glorify their caste in the late 19th/early 20th century. The only sources that you have ever been able to provide to support your assertion have been either (a) unreliable or (b) using words such as "Yadavs claim to be Yadava" or "Yadavs may possibly have been Yadava". Those simply are not enought to justify including content about ancient empires of the Yadavas, especially since Yadavas have a separate article and it is linked to from Yadav. Sure, Yadava is a dreadfully poor article but it does nonetheless exist - feel free to improve it (provided you do not make the same incorrect connection there also). Stop the warring, please. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)