User talk:Sapah3

Welcome!
Hello, Sapah3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Asian people did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for your message. There is a source that uses the term "Monsoon Asia". I am not sure if this appropriate or not. I have reverted your edit again but if you don't agree you can revert it edit again and I can open a discussion at the talk page to achieve consensus. Thank you.(Sapah3 (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC))

General Sanctions Notice
--OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Deprodding of Brown Canadians
I have removed the tag from Brown Canadians, which you proposed for deletion. I've stated my reasons on Talk:Brown Canadians. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Schazjmd  (talk)  16:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Persistent involvement in revert disputes
Hi, thank you very much for your contributions. I'm a bit concerned about the frequency of your usage of "undo"/"revert", with detailed edit summaries instead of talk page discussion. Perhaps you could reconsider that approach. Thanks and best regards ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Nightfury 08:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Desi
Dear Sapah3, in response to your latest revision, where you state that the term desi applies strictly to Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis only, that is based on only sources 2 and 3. And source 2 is an opinion piece in a magazine targeted toward South Asians. If you look at source 1, Boy Culture: An Encyclopedia, it states that desi is a term that applies to South Asians living in the United States and UK. And it goes on to say that South Asians include Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Sri Lankans. Therefore, it makes sense that the term desi would apply to Sri Lankans living in the US/UK as well as the other three groups. In addition, while source 3, the Oxford Dictionary, states that desi is a term for Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary includes those three groups and also Sri Lankans. Here is the link: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/desi_1:

Just something to think about. Thanks.174.140.115.206 (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)174.140.115.206 (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you very much for your comment. I understand what you are telling me but the general consensus is that Sri Lankans (and Nepalis) are not within the core definition of "desi". In regards to the first source it doesn't actually mention the term "Sri Lankan" so to infer that because Sri Lankans are South Asians they are "desi" would constitute original research and that's not allowed according to the rules of Wikipedia. Yes your source suggests Sri Lankans are "desi" but other sources (like the one listed on the Desi article page) don't. What we can see is that the term is open to opinion and the only thing we can do is understand that while some countries may be considered "desi" and others not, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh will always be considered "desi" no matter what context we use "desi" in. So that is why the article lede describes this reality by highlighting the fact that the term is subjective and that it is generally accepted that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are "desi" nations. I hope this helps you understand why the article has been written the way that it has been written. (Sapah3 (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC))

Thank you for your response. So it sounds like you're saying India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are always considered "desi" and other South Asian nations like Sri Lanka or Nepal may or may not be considered "desi" depending on whom you ask. Do I have that right? Thank you for your objective and balanced response to my question.174.140.115.206 (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your reply. Yes you are right. Thank you very much, glad I was able to help. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC))

September 2020
Your recent editing history at British Asian shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''You're both edit-warring. Stop.'' — MarkH21talk 03:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that the other editor has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. You can revert block evasion after the SPI has closed, don't just revert back-and-forth before that happens. Thanks! — MarkH21talk 03:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Appealing block
a CheckUser wasn't used in the investigation. My account hasn't been linked with other accounts, the filer merely associated my account with IP addresses from Australia and the US and claimed I was a sockpuppet. The edits made on my account are not the same as the edits registered on those IP addresses. I haven't been using multiple accounts, I only have this account. Can you please tell me why I have been blocked? The edits on the IP addresses aren't the same as the edits on my accounts and I haven't committed anything that constitutes WP:LOUTSOCK or WP:ILLEGIT, yet I have been blocked. (Sapah3 (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC))
 * You are correct. Forgive me; I have been looking at some checkuser blocks, and assumed yours was one of them because you were blocked after a sockpuppet investigation. Let me look a bit more into your case. I tend to edit Wikipedia in short batches in between doing other things, so there may be some delay. I am about to stop editing Wikipedia for a little bit. If I haven't got back to you this afternoon, please ping me in case I forget. SilkTork (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't stop editing, I looked into it. Having looked more closely at your edits, I agree with the blocking admin that the similarities between your edit summaries and areas of interest is very close. There is of course a possibility that the other user is not you, but given what we can see, it is rather more likely than less that it is you. The only reasonable explanation is that someone with good knowledge of how sockpuppet investigations work has deliberately set you up in a clever and subtle manner. That's not something that can be easily resolved, and certainly not in this unblock request. However, if this sort of thing happens again when you resume editing after two weeks it could be looked into at that time with a CheckUser. For now, one way or the other, you just have to sit this one out. SilkTork (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining everything to me. I shall wait for the two week block to expire. I just had one more question to ask, is there any posibility of moving accounts on Wikipedia? To elaborate, what I'm asking is whether there is a possibility to merge two different accounts together or changing the name or something along the lines of that in order to disassociate myself from all of this? I'm asking because I genuinely believe that this user will continue to come after me after this block expires. They came after me as an IP user earlier on in the year, using obscene language against me, and then as two registered users (which were later blocked) and now a fourth time as a newly registered user. The first time they registered an account they opened up an investigation against me and it was declared false. This is the second time they have done it. I don't think it's going to end and I feel like from now on, I'm just going get caught up in investigations where I'm declared a sockpuppet. I just want to continue adding new information to Wikipedia articles such as the new information I acquired from a journal I read about the Straits Chinese community and their role during the British colonial era. I don't think I'll be able to do any of this anymore because I think I'll just continue to get caught up in sockpuppet investigations being accused of things that I didn't do. I don't want to create another account because that will be breaking the rules so I'm interested to know if there is any other legal way to disassociate myself from this account as it currently stands. (Sapah3 (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC))
 * There are two ways open to you: Clean start and Changing username. By changing your name, everything remains the same - all your old edits are credited to you, and your old name will direct people to your new name. As such it would not throw off someone who had a vendetta against you, as they could quickly trace you. Doing a clean start, in which you retire this account (and do not return to it) and use a new account (and you couldn't do that until after this block is completed) would ensure that you would not be identified unless you returned to editing in the same areas and editing in the same way. If you did a clean start and yet carried on doing the same thing, you would be identified fairly quickly. While notifying ArbCom that you were doing a clean start would afford you some protection against a claim of sockpuppetry, it would not protect you against a malicious user who recognised you. The most effective way of protecting yourself would be a clean start followed by you editing away from the areas you are currently editing in. That may be something you are not prepared to do. It is not unusual for someone to have a vendetta against a user. See How to deal with harassment and Harassment for some advice on the matter.  SilkTork (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the late reply. Thank you very much for your reply and all the helpful information you have provided. I shall have a think about the options that are available and decide how I want to proceed. Also, thank you for the links about harassment, I shall have a look at them too. I appreciate the time you have spent to educate me on these topics. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC))

November 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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:. SilkTork (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You have evaded your block and used a sleeper account (User talk:FloralRiver). You returned to making problematic edits. You have not been honest. If you wish to return to editing Wikipedia you must convince someone (not me) that you can be trusted, and you must reveal any other sleeper accounts you have. SilkTork (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)