User talk:Souniel Yadav

Welcome!

Hello, Souniel Yadav, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! !dea4u 05:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--regentspark (comment) 13:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

verification

Please read wp:v, a source has to support the text you add this edit [[1]] did not actually reflect the source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Please read wp:consensus, once reverted you should not add it back without discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on 2020 Delhi Riots

Please note that the 2020 Delhi riots article is under active arbcom sanctions. When you make an edit on that page, a warning notice on top tells you what restrictions are currently in place. Your recent edit (this one) is in violation of this restriction If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. Please be careful going forward. --regentspark (comment) 14:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It wasn't a reinstatement, I just changed a sentence which called an accused, an "activist" with a sentence proposed by User:Trojanishere on the talk page and unused anywhere else in the article. I don't have much time to edit Wikipedia. Thanks.Souniel Yadav (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No you changed a statement about some (unidentified) people into one about a specific person (which has not got consensus), which you had already tried to add here [[2]] and had it rejected. The fact you tried to add it somewhere else does not alter the fact you tried to add this twice.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Adding content that is similar to reverted material is a revert. Since you're new to Wikipedia, I've left you this note but arbcom sanctions are taken very seriously and can result in blocks, topic bans, or worse. --regentspark (comment) 17:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Souniel, can you explain why you deleted the term "activists" in this edit? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have given no response to this, while you are making more contentious edits. You cannot claim, as you did here, that you made an edit that somebody recommended. If it is your edit, it is your responsibility and you need to justify it. Nor can you ask other editors to make edits for you. See WP:Meat puppetry. If you do this again, you will be looking at very long block or ban. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canvasing

If you ping involved edds you should ping all of them, not just have an "and others".Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

That was not a proper RfC. You can't attach the RfC tag to an existing discussion. Also, an RfC needs a clear question. El_C 22:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further it needs to follow WP:RfC particularly "include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the {{rfc}} tag. Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date). Failing to provide a time and date will cause Legobot to remove your discussion from the pages that notify interested editors of RfCs.'

You can give your opinion after that as explained. I hope you will remove this as if you don't I'm sure someone else, perhaps me, will. This is a completely improper use of the procedure, going against both the spirit and the letter. You must have read the guidance in order to set it up, so this is concerning. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should not alter the options after people have voted. You should offer a new option.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks Slatersteven!-Souniel Yadav (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No "rebuttals," please

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. El_C 17:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience and fringe science discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

El_C 17:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I wanted to add content from here to the Wikipedia article on "Kafir". Can I? Is it a reliable source?—Souniel Yadav (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I typed a double "p" for oppindia.com by mistake and now when I am trying to remove the extra "p" the edit doesn't get saved. Please help!—Souniel Yadav (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, opindia is not considered a reliable source and may not be used for anything on Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks!—Souniel Yadav (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Is www.islamicstudies.info a reliable source? Can we cite it as a reference?—Souniel Yadav (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about jstor.org, politicalislam.com, academic.oup.com, ummah.com, alislam.org, abdullahandalusi.com, thesunniway.com, danielpipes.org and haribhakt.com?—Souniel Yadav (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I cite this as a reference (I request you to provide a template): https://quranx.com/98.6?Context=3 and is it a reliable source?—Souniel Yadav (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about whether or not a source is reliable cannot be fully answered unless you also ask the rest of the question: is it a reliable source for establishing this fact'? That is, the question has to be asked in context? Questions about sources can be better asked on the talk page of the article where you are proposing to use the source or at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or, sometimes, on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject.

There is a {{cite Quran}} template but please remember the advice at WP:ISLAMOR to avoid making any sort of argument or interpretation yourself. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks!—Souniel Yadav (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned you

at WP:NORN#Using quotes from religious texts in articles as examples without reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 15:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, I got the idea from the template above (I thought the verse from the Quran was self explanatory - the previous sentence mentioned Hell). Now please let me know how to quote that text in a way that is acceptable (I am sure you will help me avoid repeating the mistake). Thanks!—Souniel Yadav (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from primary sources

I stopped by to explain why I reverted you at Kafir but notice you've already been told that you shouldn't be adding quotes. To clarify, you cannot add quotes that elaborate on material in the article unless a reliable secondary source has made that explicit connection. I suggest eschewing quotes completely. They are usually unnecessary and add little, if anything, to the discussion. --regentspark (comment) 14:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 07:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Delhi riots

Is under special restrictions that means no changes should be made to the lead without first getting agreement. Which I note you are already aware of.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you can tell me how to go about it. If one reads the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Pakistan article, the consensus is to keep out acts of discrimination but yet, Kautilya3, has added a couple of sentences against the consensus - see this and his previous 2 edits!—Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Souniel, this was a misunderstanding on your part. I said we would have to wait for better sources become available and, when they became available, I added the previously disputed content along with new sources. As you notice, it wasn't disputed the second time, which implies tacit WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message, I think the content of what you said is already covered by the sentence below which says Initially, Hindu and Muslim attacks were equally lethal. The sentence you added doesn't flow with the rest of the content where you added it. Also, the point of the lead section is to summarize the event, not get into the details. Yes, it was a Hindu–Muslim riot as in it involved people from both sides, but it was primarily an event instigated by a set of Hindu people, which is what the lead paragraph says. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with @SerChevalerie's reasoning in that your text doesn't add anything that's not already stated. Getsnoopy (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision and for breach of the 1RR discretionary sanction on the page 2020 Delhi riots, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Souniel Yadav (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not repeated the exact same act/s and so this block is unjustified. This is what triggered an admin to block me but it is not a repetition of any previous action Souniel Yadav (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear violation of WP:EW. Note that it doesn't need to be the exact same content. I see you introduced this change. This was the first revert. This was the second, wherein you are now violating WP:EW and WP:1RR. This was the third revert. The block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

read wp:editwar please.Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

Hi Souniel Yadav. Regarding your email request. Unfortunately, I can't intervene in a content dispute (and, frankly, I don't know enough about this subject to comment on content anyway). I suggest you make your concerns known on the talk page and see how that goes. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a reliably sourced encyclopedia, so make sure you back up your claims with good sources. Apologies for not being able to help more. Best. --regentspark (comment) 22:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks!—Souniel Yadav (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Souniel Yadav (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to say that as a relatively new editor, I apologise and deeply regret using an alternative account and violating Wikipedia's sockpuppeting policy. I am also sorry for e-mailing multiple users [I did not know it was prohibited]. I promise that if I am unblocked, I will be a productive editor and will not indulge in this kind of behaviour again [I have been well behaved as Souniel Yadav, made almost 500 edits and got sanctioned just once for something I did not realise was a "reversion"]. I ask for one more chance as per WP:ROPE (I never knew such a rule existed until now). I promise that I will not let any of you down. I am grateful that you are taking the time to review my request. Thank you. Souniel Yadav (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are not permitted to modify or remove any declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Read WP:GAB to understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. . I have always been citing references and avoiding reverting any edit after being warned. I discuss any reversion by others on the "Talk" page of the article. Thank you! Souniel Yadav (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an unblock request. To understand how to write an unblock request, see WP:GAB. Additionally, you were blocked for abusing multiple accounts and will need to address that in your unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To make an unblock request, copy the following text to the bottom of your user talk page:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Souniel Yadav (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to say that as a relatively new editor, I apologise and deeply regret using an alternative account and violating Wikipedia's sockpuppeting policy. I promise to use just this account and will not abuse multiple accounts. I am also sorry for e-mailing multiple users [I did not know it was prohibited]. I promise that if I am unblocked, I will be a productive editor and will not indulge in this kind of behaviour again [I have been well behaved as Souniel Yadav, made almost 500 edits and got sanctioned just once for something I did not realise was a "reversion" - which means I have understood the rules better and am complying with the rules]. I ask for one more chance as per WP:ROPE (I never knew such a rule existed until now). I promise that I will not let any of you down. I am grateful that you are taking the time to review my request. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. I have always been citing references and avoiding reverting any edit after being warned. I discuss any reversion by others on the "Talk" page of the article. Thank you! Souniel Yadav (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Hi Souniel Yadav, it isn't your intention, but both your behavior on Wikipedia, as well as your behavior when appealing blocks, is disruptive. Here again, you are mostly repeating yourself; you already had your "rope" and used it with a sockpuppet. You have lost the trust of the community; I recommend the standard offer. To prevent further disruptive appeals for now, I am revoking your talk page access. See you, perhaps in 2021. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Possible relationship to User:Hometech

Besides the fact that this user has been banned for sock-puppeteering, the editing patterns and issues (WP:SYNTH, copying/pasting content from one article to other articles inappropriately), choice of articles to edit, and the user's talk page posts are highly reminiscent of User:Hometech, who had a few dozen sockpuppets in 2019. Buddytula (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]