User talk:WiseWik

Caste warning
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philg88 (talk • contribs)

Ways to improve Twenty four Manai Chettiars
Hi, I'm Jbhunley. WiseWik, thanks for creating Twenty four Manai Chettiars!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please consider returning to the article to address these issues.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. J bh Talk  16:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Komati caste 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 differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Twenty four Manai Chettiars


The article Twenty four Manai Chettiars has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence of notability.

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. Pam D  23:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Komati caste, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Komati caste. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016: topic ban warning
You seem to have the impression that removal of sourced material is by definition "vandalism". You're mistaken. Please don't throw around the word vandalism without reading WP:Vandalism and understanding how the word is used on Wikipedia, because it's an insulting term to use against any good-faith editor (and using it against the experienced Sitush is simply ridiculous). There are many valid reasons to remove material besides lack of sourcing; for instance bias, or lack of balance in the article, see WP:UNDUE. You added some new and contentious text to Komati caste, and when it was removed with a request that you engage on talk first, you reverted and called the removal vandalism. Please see WP:BRD: you're the one that needs to engage on talk and try to get consensus for your addition. Please self-revert, and please read the guidelines I have linked you to before you edit again, as you seem unaware of them. I understand that you are a fairly new editor, and so you deserve some extra patience from admins, but at this point I'm pretty close to topic banning you from Komati caste and related pages. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC).
 * Providing context to the issue, you have made a series of edits to Komati (caste), after which there was a prolonged debate on the wisdom of your edits on the talk page. Then, who is a senior editor and administrator, came in, read the debate and installed this consensus text. This text should not be altered without generating consensus for such changes on the talk page. We are not willing to sit and debate the same issues over and over again with you. If you have new evidence, please by all means bring it to the talk page and present it. But your new edits again cite the same authors and same books, repackaging the same ideas, and you started edit-warring again. This is no good. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The earlier edits wasn't based on consensus and only showed one side of the theory, I have added additional references and still maintained that there are multiple theories on the origin. Removing referenced content is only to docter or put a biased view on Wikipedia.

--WiseWik (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If you disagreed with the text Utcursch installed, you should have raised an objection. You are still welcome to raise objections, on the talk page. You need to state your case, and wait for the others to review your ideas and agree/disagree. The bottom line is that you should not change the consensus text that Utcursch installed unilaterally, no matter how convinced you are of your own ideas. Wikipedia is not your personal platform. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree its not any editors personal platform and don't want to single out Utcursch here! Lets discuss why they shouldn't be in the article? they are referenced and from the same source as the consensus text!

We had consensus on removing riots in the article and I see the exact opposite of the consensus passed off as consensus text. Are riots between communities consensus text? Utcursch can I have your consensus here?

Again what is passed off as consensus text shows only one sided view and full of errors. There is a deliberate attempt to enforce the caste system and discredit the factual evidence of existence of Jainism and the synonymous usage of Komati and Gomata since its Jainism which is far away from the caste system.

--WiseWik (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop now
You have been reverted by two other editors today. Please don't attempt any further to insert contested material into Komati caste. The problems with your edit are enumerated clearly on the article talk page.

More importantly, your edit summary in constitutes a personal attack, because on Wikipedia vandalism is defined as "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia". Reversion of disputed text is part of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and cannot be, by any stretch of the imagination, described as "vandalism". Personal attacks on other editors are quite likely to lead to a loss of your editing privileges, so I strongly recommend you refrain any further attacks. Please take this as a warning and make an effort to amend your behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved from my page and replied, with topic ban

 * The post below was posted on my page with the header "You are biased against editors."

Hi Bishonen,

Let user Sitush first go through the references first they are the same references cited based on which the other part of the article are accepted. The edits are all referenced please check and if you find these aren't from the references cited please discuss and revert.

Threatening to block editors reverting edits putting biased posts aren't honorary for editors. Lets not go by Idol worship. Sometimes you might have contributed a great article sometimes not what matters in an edit is not who has contributed what but whats the contribution of the editor.

I refuse to remove the edits with out discussing this or letting Wikipedia know why they shouldnt be mentioned in the article?

--WiseWik (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a very disappointing reply, Wisewik. It appears you have no interest in our rules, haven't taken in my explanations in the warning above, and haven't clicked on the links I gave. I haven't mentioned blocking so I don't know where that came from; I said I'd topic ban you if you don't comply with our rules. All right, I have topic banned you from Komati caste and related pages for one month, per the yellow template below. Topic banning means you're not allowed to edit Komati caste, nor its talkpage, nor any other related pages, but you can freely edit the rest of Wikipedia. Honestly, you'll do yourself a favour if you click on the topic ban policy this time, because if you violate the ban and do edit those pages, you will be blocked. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC).

Hi Bishonen,

You asked me to revert my edits, you threatened me. You changed the edits yourself to put a casteist, concocted twisted view to suit whims and fancies of particular editors. I discussed my points on the talk page where you are supporting editors who have removed referenced content from Wikipedia? Later you BAN me SADLY this is how Wikipedia is controlled by a bunch of editors who remove referenced content to suit there whims and fancies. You have the power to Ban me but you have proved you have no power to change my point of view or the referenced content I put in Wikipedia. You need not hide you want to put a biased version of story and hide referenced content. If only content that suits your whims and fancies is to be contributed to Wikipedia then who will contribute in wikipedia biased bunch of editors??

Your actions of threatening to ban, forcing editors to revert their edits with referenced content only shows my contributions were researched and correct and your actions biased, weak. Force is the method of those whose reason is weak. You Win!

--WiseWik (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A topic ban means a complete ban from discussing the topic anywhere, including on talk pages. I have reverted you at Talk:Komati caste for that reason. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating your topic ban. I guess you didn't understand what "topic ban" means, nor apparently did you click on the link I gave you to the topic ban policy. I actually put in the sentence "Please read the topic ban policy to ensure you understand what topic banned means" individually into the ban above, because I was afraid you might have trouble with the notion of a topic ban. I'm sorry to see it didn't help, and didn't stop you from violating your topic ban here. You are not allowed to edit Komati caste, nor its talkpage, nor discuss the subject of Komati caste anywhere. If you think that's unfair or biased, you should appeal the ban according to the instructions you were given in the ban itself — not simply go on to violate it! You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating your topic ban. If you do it again, you'll get a longer block.. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)