User talk:Southasianhistorian8/Archive 1



Hello, Suthasianhistorian8, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
 * Check out some of these pages:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode


 * If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, [ ask me on my talk page], or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Archives
Hi. Discussions on talk pages are often archived and these are usually searchable. FYI. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

requested move
Hi, I just wanted to give you the heads up that I've had to remove the request you placed at requested moves because unfortunately you put it in the wrong place and it wasn't signed. You're welcome to place a request again, but may sure you copy the model line and put it in the section with all the other requests, instead of replacing the model line with your request. You can recover the text you wrote from the page's history, so you don't need to type it all again. Let me know if you need help. Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Please add edit summaries always
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision diffs
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Special:Diff/1056085642 is where an edit summary would have been helpful. Hemanthah (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Suthasianhistorian8! Your additions to Taliban have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
--RegentsPark (comment) 16:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked you for two weeks based on your report at WP:ANEW against another user for edit-warring at Singh. Not only were you edit-warring, but in early November of this year, after I had blocked you for edit-warring at another article, you promised never to edit-war but to always seek consensus through the usual methods of dispute resolution. In addition, at ANEW you attacked the other user, accusing them of vandalism and bad English. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Bold text== Blocked for sockpuppetry ==  You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Suthasianhistorian8. 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:. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Please assume AGF and provide me leniency similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kelownatopdog who was blocked for one week for sockpuppetry (his account posted on my talk page which is how I know). Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, -- could you please provide an update of some sort? I've read each and every Wikipedia editing policy, guideline as well as conduct policies. In addition to never even thinking of creating another account, I will also act on a de facto 1RR policy on every single article I edit (even in articles that have no such rule- except for cases of obvious vandalism and I have been abiding by talk page policies and disupte resolution methods for the past 6 months) which means that if another editor opposes my edits, rather than reverting any more, I will immediately go to the talk page on the very first revert, as well as strictly abiding by the first top three segements of  in my edit summaries and refrain from calling edits "disruptive" which I have done recently a few times and I concur that it's a bit impolite. Could you please reduce the block to one or two weeks? Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Please have patience with unblock requests; there are not admins standing by 24/7 to review them. Do not ping random admins. The blocked user does not get to choose the length of the block. In this case the indefinite nature is due to your sockpuppetry. Blocks are not a punishment, but a means to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Your block will be removed when we can be convinced that there will be no more disruption from you.  You already had promised to not edit war and did, so why should we believe you won't now? 331dot (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What about all the other accounts? (the sock puppetry was confirmed by a checkuser so ultimately only a checkuser can unblock this account) 331dot (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I would like to address this first (I believe you're asking about the infractions I've committed on my other accounts and not just from this account, sorry for the misunderstanding - the message I've posted above encompasses the edits I've made through all my sock accounts (includes a brief summary of all the edits I've made from all of my accounts since abandoning this account on Dec 7th- primarily my two accounts IIBxtrerII and Kamhiri which are the two accounts I was using ~90% of the time since Feb) : "You already had promised to not edit war and did, so why should we believe you won't now?" The warning I got on my talk page for edit warring on my IIBxtrerII account was just that: a warning. (the only one I got in 6 months). It didn't escalate any further, and truth be told, the edits I was reverting were imo obvious vandalism, the sentiments of which were also reiterated by another user  see Severestorm28's edit summary. It also seemed highly unlikely that the user I was reverting would've engaged in discussion in the talk page either way and I did ask him multiple times to go to the talk page to gain consensus. I also initiated a talk page discussion and an RFC on the talk page of Economy of Pakistan  during a content dispute (however the other editor in this case didn't engage in the talk page and was shortly blocked for edit warring and adding novel synthesis to the page).


 * Other than that, I've went to the talk page and dispute resolution noticeboards whenever a content dispute would arise during the past 6 months so there is no issue concerning my ability to use the correct means to reach consensus and deal with content disputes through dispute resolution methods. Please consult the talk page of Siege of Sirhind and this RSN post. I also plan to act  under a de facto 1 revert rule for any article that I edit regardless of whether 1RR is in place or not, which means that I will immediately go to the talk page once my edit has been reverted the first time without any more reverts coming from my side.
 * "What about all the other accounts? (the sock puppetry was confirmed by a checkuser so ultimately only a checkuser can unblock this account)" The other accounts were blocked and will remain blocked forever and I won't touch them again, this account is considered the "master" account. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , not a checkuserblock, any admin can unblock. Suthasianhistorian8 - I've received your emails. Given the recent-ish past blocks on this account, I considered the use of multiple accounts an evasion of scrutiny. If you'd abandoned this account and just gone to one other, I'd probably have let it slide, but you didn't, you used a bunch of accounts at once, which sure seems like trying to hide your activity. I just have one question - why? Why were you using twelve different accounts? GeneralNotability (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes you're correct. I was in the wrong and there's no excuse for my sockpuppetry. This is the only account I will use here on out. I can assure you that will never happen again and I stand by my commitment to work in a respectful manner and abide by every single Wikipedia policy and guideline. Apart from my sockpuppetry which I will once again say was wrong of me, I do believe however that I have made significant progress in the past 6 months regarding my use of talk page and relevant dispute noticeboards to achieve consensus, an issue I had been reprimanded for when I was very new here. If you do decide to unblock me, respectful conduct and collaborative editing will be my rule of thumb . Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * After all the promises of abiding by Wikipedia policies after getting blocked twice before, Suthasianhistorian8 still went against it and further created 12 additional sock accounts where I have noticed that he used most of them simultaneously on some articles. On top of that through multiple sock accounts Suthasianhistorian8 accused other editors of vandalism. Even when I told his sock user account to take discussion to talk page on one of the article, he continued to edit war by reverting changes without reaching consensus. He has also used false accusations before and quite recently as well. I believe Suthasianhistorian8 was well aware of Sock Puppetry policies before and it seems quite obvious that he made all effort of evading getting caught, avoid detection and sanctions. MehmoodS (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * GeneralNotability, I intend to work collaboratively and respectfully with the user, but please note that this is somewhat of a misrepresentation of facts. He claims that I edit warred on a article, however he had done the same amount of reverts, I started a discussion on the talk page and we achieved consensus in the very same day. Please also note a while ago, he accused me of putting incorrect citation templates and that he had to constantly fix up after me, when I asked him for diffs to prove this twice, he did not provide them. As I've stated, apart from this SPI, no kind of report of edit warring or ANI or whatnot was filed against me for the past 6 months and the vast majority of my edits were constructive. Nonetheless, I plan to work constructively, and respectfully with the user above on article, ancillary talk page under a new de facto 1RR rule I will impose upon myself. Hope we can start afresh and assume good faith in one another and let past indiscretions go. I apologize to you for any of my past transgressions or if I've affronted you in any way MehmoodS. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

is closed. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 01:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Appeal

 * - You're right, I apologize. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Appeal
Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

You emailed me to ask about the status of your unblock request. I can't review it as I have already declined a prior request. The fact that nobody else has ruled already means that your request is not sufficiently convincing. You can either wait (very, very many unblock requests have to wait substantially longer than five days) or you can choose to rewrite it. Either way is your decision. --Yamla (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * could you please review my unblock request as I am asking for a conditional unblock (with topic bans if admins deem necessary). I understand my actions on India+ religion related topics have been less than ideal, but there are unrelated pages that I would like to edit as well. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I plan on staying away from India + religion related topics for quite some time regardless of whether a topic ban is imposed or not. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , I concur with Yamla's comment above that CU shows no evidence of block evasion in the past three months, and am fine with you (or another admin) unblocking at your discretion. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rosguill.

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Victoria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Hall. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Re. your email
I can't assist you with this as I'm not an administrator or a checkuser. See Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases and WP:CheckUser if you wish to pursue this further. Spicy (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I took a look at your case and you should consider filing an SPI. While the behavioral evidence is, at best, mixed, a checkuser might tell us more since a couple of the users are active right now. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)