User talk:Indiansociology

Yadav
Hi Indiansociology. I wanted to let you know that I have reverted your edits on Yadav. The changes you have made have been proposed over the years on the talk page of the article over the years and have not gained consensus. You removed multiple reliable sources that verify the information in the article. If you have problems, please continue dialog on the talk page or try the dispute resolution process.  Ish dar  ian  07:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mayabhai ahir
Hello Indiansociology,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mayabhai ahir for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Roborule (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mayabhai ahir


A tag has been placed on Mayabhai ahir requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Your Friendly Neigborhood Wikipedian  (talk)  08:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pran Sukh Yadav


The article Pran Sukh Yadav has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails WP:GNG. From unreliable caste websites etc, he appears to have existed but the only printed sources I can find are equally unreliable (Gyan-published, for example) or mention him only in passing (Encyclopaedia Indica). Just another of the many local heroes of the Indian revolution.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sitush (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ras Behari Lal Mandal


The article Ras Behari Lal Mandal has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahir/Yadav edit warring
I'll be blunt: I think that you are a returning user. Your edits to Ahir- and Yadav-related articles are pushing the typical caste POV that has been a long-term feature of such sockmasters as and they fly in the face of consensus and reliable sources, as discussed on umpteen occasions at the article talk pages. Right now, I'm not in a position to delve for proof of socking and I am prepared to discuss the issues with you as and when I am fit to do anything at all - if I were you, I'd think that was a good bargain. Edit warring is a blockable offence, the articles are subject to the sanctions outlined at WP:GS/Caste, and you need also to bear in mind the bold-revert-discuss cycle. Just to make it clear to you, I'm notifying you of the latter point below. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahir
You are still reinstating challenged material at Ahir. Please take it to Talk:Ahir and note WP:BRD. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ahir. 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. Please be particularly aware, 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2014 (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.

--I am respecting all the policies mentioned.Well referenced edit was removed without viting credible reasons or providing evidence.Just reverted that

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Ahir. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, 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. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)