User talk:Videh raj

June 2022

Hello, I'm Akalanka820. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Harsha have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Hi, please understand you need to provide references stating the same for the kind of changes you want to make. Akalanka820 (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello Videh raj and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Help pages
Tutorial
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing?

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Packer&Tracker (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Please have a look at WP:V and WP:RS: Much of the content you are adding is unsourced or not supported by the sources cited. For example, here you added the assertion "Dalit and Tribal women in big numbers were involved in Niyoga with Brahmins", which is not unsupported by the source cited at the end of the para. utcursch | talk 17:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kanyakubja Brahmin, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. utcursch | talk 21:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Niyoga, you may be blocked from editing. utcursch | talk 22:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding your own interpretation of sources to the articles. The source must directly support the assertion you are adding. Even ignoring the 'Kannaujia' bit here, the source does not talk about any "KulGurus or Kulpurohits". utcursch | talk 23:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, here you wrongly claimed that the source does not support the statement cited (it cleary does); instead, you added a statement that it does not support. Please stick to WP:V and WP:RS. If you want to glorify your caste / varna, please use your personal blog - Wikipedia is not the place to do that. utcursch | talk 21:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Satavahana dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parshuram. 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, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Satavahana dynasty, you may be blocked from editing. utcursch | talk 06:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its you who is vandalising identity of satavahanas Videh raj (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the section Satavahana dynasty#Varna, there are various theories about the Varna of the dynasty. You are pushing your Brahmin POV based on a single source (which is already mentioned in the Varna section). Also, you are removing sourced content. If you want a third opinion, you can start a discussion on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. utcursch | talk 06:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were theories on Earth being flat too but latest researches tell it isn't. Satavahanas themselves claimed to be Brahmin and destroyer of the Kshatriyas which clears that they weren't kshatriya but Brahmin. Videh raj (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source that you're describing as "latest researches" is a 1957 book. The sources that you removed in these edits are from 1998, 1992, 1976, 1969, and 1965. Please explain on the article's talk page why you think these are "outdated theories". Also, please see WP:NPA - insults like this will get you blocked quickly. utcursch | talk 08:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Satavahana dynasty. utcursch | talk 14:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned earlier, Satavahana dynasty#Varna lists various theories about the varna of the dynasty. Please stop highlighting your favorite one as the correct one. Another editor besides me has undone your edits - as per WP:BRD, please discuss your edits at Talk:Satavahana dynasty. If you continue your disruptive editing, you will be blocked. utcursch | talk 14:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I noticed that you recently removed content from Brahmin without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 00:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sumanuil. I noticed that you recently removed content from Brahmin without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Brahmin, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 02:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Edit-warring

Hi Videh raj. You noticed how many times you've been reverted now at the Brahmin-article? Time to stop; see also WP:3RR. And yes, Brahmins are descendants of the Indo-Aryans - but not the only; every Indian is a descendant of the Indo-Aryans. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: every Indian is a descendant of the Indo-Aryans – are you sure you meant it? Cause I can think of plenty of Indian ethnic groups that have no Indo-Aryan heritage. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Brahmin) for a period of 6 months for persistent disruptive editing. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 22:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Videh raj, looking at your contributions and the various comments on your talk page, you're looking at a site block from Wikipedia. You're repeatedly adding content sourced to primary texts despite all the warnings you've been getting. I've reverted you at Rishi and at Kanyakubja Brahmin for now but please heed this warning if you want to keep editing. Also, you should note that there are talk pages attached to every article and you can discuss your edits there. RegentsPark (comment) 23:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ramananda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prayag.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Hi, Videh raj. I see you have been editing Kanyakubja Brahmin a lot lately. In view of this strong warning from another admin in June, I feel it's time to topic ban you from caste and social groups. You're using weak sources at Kanyakubja Brahmin, including a lot of Google Books extracts that other people can't necessarily see (it's different in different parts of the world), and I notice one obviously self-published source you added here. That book is published by "AuthorHouse", a name which sounds so suspicious that you should definitely have googled it. I did that for you, and here you can see the header "Publish Your Own Book" dominating its front page. Of course such books can't possibly be reliable sources. I also see living individuals who are supposed to be members of the caste, but have not self-identified. And I note that you have been adding the Kanyakubja Brahmin caste to the individual articles on those people as well. Caste is a complex area to edit, and you are not doing it well. This creates work for other people. You have been topic banned; please see the yellow box below. Bishonen | tålk 09:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen They are using terrible sources, several are self-published. And making controversial statements in Wikivoice as though they were factual. They all need reverting. I've reverted some. This editor seems to be just picking anything that agrees with him and has no idea about reliable publishing. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning caste and social groups in India and Pakistan.

You have been sanctioned for tendentious editing with very weak sourcing.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 09:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen | tålk 09:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

October 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 21:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violation of topic ban, you have been blocked temporarily from editing Wikipedia. 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.

RegentsPark (comment) 21:07, 15 October 2023 (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."

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 16:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Doug Weller talk 16:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]