User talk:Sphinx120

September 2020
Hello, I'm Boing! said Zebedee. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Banaphar, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Important information
I have not done any editing on India Pakistan and Afghanistan pages. Sphinx120 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not on Pakistan or Afghanistan pages, I know. The blue box is a standard alert which is very inclusive. But you certainly have edited Indian subjects. All your edits are to Indian subjects, including this one, that you have been warned about. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC).


 * Can I know what type of rules I didn't follow Sphinx120 (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's made extremely clear in the post by Boing! said Zebedee at the top of this page. Please just read it and follow the links in it. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC).
 * I also explained in some detail at my talk page, where I stressed the importance of seeking consensus through discussion when you wish to make contentious changes related to the topic of caste. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There's also another set of sanctions applicable to caste-related topics, which you need to know about...

September 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You were told to discuss before making Ahir/Rajput and other caste-related changes at Banaphar, to explain why your preferred sources are better than the ones currently used, and to seek consensus. You have continued with exactly the same kind of changes at Alha, without discussion or consensus. If, when this block expires, you continue making similar changes without gaining consensus, you could be banned from this entire topic area under the terms of the Discretionary Sanctions to which you were alerted above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all you can block or banned me I don't care about blocking by Wikipedia volunteer but if you're talking about reliable source than the book is currently on the page is also not support the article Sphinx120 (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If/when you're topic banned (or indefinitely blocked), it's going to be by a Wikipedia volunteer. There's nobody else here but us volunteers. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC).
 * Please do read and understand WP:Consensus. If you believe a source used in an article does not support what the article says, and you believe you have a better source that says something different, start a discussion on the article talk page. If you can gain an agreement in support of your desired change, with other editors agreeing that your proposed new source is reliable, then you can make the change. It is as straightforward as that. What you can not do is just make a contentious change based on your own assertions and your own reasoning about a source - not in the highly charged area of the Indian caste system. Please understand that we have had huge amounts of dispute and disruption around castes - I'm sure you understand what a fraught topic it is. That's why discussion and consensus are especially important with this subject, and why the Wikipedia community has imposed these discretionary sanctions regimes and given administrators extra powers to deal with potential disruption. I'm quite sure you don't mean to be disruptive, but engaging in discussion and seeking consensus is the only permissible approach here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll just add that I have no idea myself whether the "Acharya mayaram patang" source you used is reliable (for one thing, I don't read Hindi). The problem is, there are many many publications in this area that present religion and mythology as historical fact, and/or make all sorts of unsupportable claims relating to castes. There are many authors, and many caste-related organizations, promoting their own castes without justification. And it's compounded by writers from the Raj era who were essentially political and were wholly incompetent as ethnologists. So it is essential that any new source brought to a caste-related article be checked for its suitability and reliability. And that is done by discussion at the article talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Unblock
Sphinx120 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)