User talk:Japanmomo

June 2017
Hello, I'm ScrapIronIV. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of University of London people, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of University of London people, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add more categories in involving University of London connections without invoking sources. Please will you revert those that you have added without sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC).

Edit Warring warning
Your recent editing history at University of Manchester shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Woody (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Signing your talk page contributions
Can you please sign all your talk page contributions using 4 Tilden (~) - thanks CalzGuy (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring warning
Your recent editing history at Indian Administrative Service shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bharat.varsh (talk 09:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Indian Administrative Service and Secretary to Government of India
The Administrative in the IAS means, of or relating to administration or an administration :  executive administrative duties. IAS is a generalist service and is meant for administration. It doesn't matter if there are any other services which do administration, the fact that IAS is involved in administration, in my opinion, is suffice. Also, IAS is an All India Service, and is structured as such, that is to say its cadre is employed by both the Union government and individual state governments, and Vallabhbhai Patel was talking about All India Services, so that quote is justified.

Also, Secretary to GOI being a rank/post doesn't change the fact that the most of Secretaries are from IAS. You can't just remove something just because you don't like it. Also the 7CPC report clearly states on its pg. 201 that 73 out of 91 Secretary, GOI posts, are from IAS. And yes IAS serve in Center on deputation and after empanelment, but that hardly changes anything. Also, in the 7CPC report, other services complained about their lack of involvement in Central Staffing Scheme, so you removing that material too seems rather harsh. __________________________________________________________

IAS as sole successor to ICS; Administration in civil service
Japanmomo (talk • contribs)
 * Indian Administrative Service presently canot term itself as the sole and the only successor to the Imperial Civil Service. Candidates who were selected in the ICS went through mandatory probation training and education in England and UK. This period was spent at the University of Oxford (Indian Institute), the University of Cambridge, colleges in the University of London, Trinity College, Dublin and few other top universities in UK. At present, IAS dont write their exams either in UK or go through their probationary period in London or have anything to do with British Empire. So IAS is not ICS. ICS was terminally dead as a service when British left India after 250 years of rule and Indians as a slave race in India.
 * During British rule in India, a member of Provincial Civil Services (now called the State Civil Services) could take posts in the Imperial Civil Service but technically never promoted to the ICS, because PCS officer never in the first place took their exams in UK or went through the probationary training as ICS officers did.
 * Imperial Civil Service were the most intelligent people and elite educated people who ruled over 300 million people in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Burma (then comprising British Raj). ICS officers were known for their purpose of mission, love for their duty, loyalty to British Empire and looking after matters of permanent British settlement in India. However, IAS fraternity have been in recent years have been found guilty of crimes in 2G, Colgate, CWG and all other major scams in India. Now, many members are dismissed by Cabinet of India and PM due to pathetic job they do in administration.
 * Public Service itself is "Public administration" . There is an academic degree called MPA/MPPA which teaches about public administration as a field and a job. All members in the civil service of India (3 All India Services) and Central Civil Services (Group A and B) and Central Secretariat Service is all about Public Service and respective administration in their tasks. IAS is a generalist service which knows nothing and has been proved good for nothing. The members in IAS have neither technical skills and neither specialized skills. Their jobs can be done by a qualified CSS cadre or even a IPS cadre. Gautam Sanyals appointment as Principal Secretary in West Bengal has proved this reality and theory.

Respect for fellow editors
I see that you're a new editor—according to your contribution history, your first edits using this account were made in early June of this year. Given that, I hope you don't mind my calling attention to some ways in which you might find yourself running afoul of Wikipedia's norms and conventions.

One of Wikipedia's fundamental principles is "Assume good faith" (often abbreviated as WP:FAITH in discussion). The essence of this is: absent strong evidence to the contrary, assume that your fellow editors are making an honest effort to abide by Wikipedia's rules and improve the encyclopedia, and treat them as though this were the case.

Your edit summaries and comments don't seem to abide by this principle. I see, for instance, that you frequently use forms of the word "vandal" in your edit summaries, often in all-caps. You've done so three times, for instance, in connection with our disagreement on U. Sagayam:. If you'll look at WP:VANDAL, you'll see things like "Avoid the word 'vandal.

Wikipedia depends on courteous and respectful discussion among editors. Your accusations of vandalism, and your excessive use of the caps-lock key, are not likely to promote a spirit of cordiality and reason. If for no other reason, consider that they might be harmful to causes that you espouse: intemperate language and a hectoring tone are not likely to favorably impress third parties joining a discussion of a disputed edit. Ammodramus (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent racist attacks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * And not to mention the fact that your editing behavior and POV pushing has shown that you are indeed another disruptive incarnation of User:Vrghs jacob &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  01:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)