User talk:White Horserider

Welcome

Hello, Athiesm-The Best Way Forward, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Athiesm-The Best Way Forward, good luck, and have fun. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because your username, Athiesm-The Best Way Forward, does not meet our username policy. Your username is the principal reason for the block. You are welcome to continue editing after you have selected a new username that meets the username policy guidelines, which are summarized below.

Per the username policy, a username should represent an individual and should not: represent a group or organization; be promotional; be misleading (such as indicating possession of special user rights or being a "Bot" account (unless approved for such purposes)); be offensive or otherwise disruptive. However, a username that contains the name of a organization and also identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87" is allowed, though, among others, the guidance on conflict of interest and the policy of paid-contribution disclosure are relevant.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our username policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you wish for your existing contributions to carry over under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" from their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a change of name request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use. Therefore, please check the list here to see if a name is taken prior to requesting a change of name.

Appeals: If, after reading the guide to appealing blocks you believe you were blocked in error, then you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal for new User name

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked recently for my account name. Therefore, I am posting this request to change my account name from Athiesm-The Best Way Forward to Sara Smith at XYZ Company as suggested by blocking administraitor @331dot: Unblock this account as user name was main reason for block.

Decline reason:

Obvious trolling. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:30, 24 May 2021 (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.

Athiesm-The Best Way Forward (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@--jpgordon:, This is not trolling; It's funny how uncivil users became administraitor and control everything, Anyway I was blocked for my username (although don't found anything wrong in it). This the sole reason I requested for a new username but declined without even going through full case and further even accusing me of trolling.Athiesm-The Best Way Forward (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for new username

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

White Horserider (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

[[User:As, I posted a appeal earlier about changing my username which is declined by a ignorant administraitor. Thus, I request a civil and patient editor to help me in getting a new user name and unblock my account, As I understood the reason for block and I will be using new username. Since, I am a new editor, I don't know the full process of it. Please, Change my username to Sara Smith at XYZ Company|As, I posted a appeal earlier about changing my username which is declined by a ignorant administraitor. Thus, I request a civil and patient editor to help me in getting a new user name and unblock my account, As I understood the reason for block and I will be using new username. Since, I am a new editor, I don't know the full process of it. Please, Change my username to Sara Smith at XYZ Company]] ([[User talk:As, I posted a appeal earlier about changing my username which is declined by a ignorant administraitor. Thus, I request a civil and patient editor to help me in getting a new user name and unblock my account, As I understood the reason for block and I will be using new username. Since, I am a new editor, I don't know the full process of it. Please, Change my username to Sara Smith at XYZ Company|talk]] · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

You aren't going to get anywhere by hurling insults. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL:, Don't know, What else I should do more. Anyway, I am posting one more request for change of user name last time. Athiesm-The Best Way Forward (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

White Horserider (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Sara Smith at XYZ Company (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Can anyone, Please help me in changing username of my account from Athiesm-The Best Way Forward to Sara Smith at XYZ Company as this name is in terms of Wikipedia. Please unblock me for 24 hours and let me fix this issue soon. Thank you very much.Athiesm-The Best Way Forward (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"Sara Smith at XYZ Company" is the example given in the template. The only way in which that username represents you is that it shows your unwillingness to take this seriously. Request a username which represents YOU, and which offers us some hope that you won't be a net-negative to the community. Cabayi (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: Ok, I got it. Give me some time to figure out a way for the same. Thanks for responding in much better way. Athiesm-The Best Way Forward (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New username request

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

White Horserider (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

White Horserider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

After getting through multiple essays and articles related to the issue, I finally found a way. I request being a new editor for changing ny account User-name. Please, Change it from Athiesm-The Best Way Forward to "White Horserider". I understood that main reason for my block was user name. Therefore, Please help me in changing my username to the one I suggested and for that Unblock my account for 24 hours and then change my user name to which I requested. Thank you very much. Athiesm-The Best Way Forward (talk) 06:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Renamed, unblocking. courtesy ping to 331dot - Cabayi (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chariotrider555, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Ratnahastin (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

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) 15:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rana Sanga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ranthambore. 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) 05:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mughal Empire 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. You appear to be a new user. Please acquaint yourself with the Wikipedia imperatives of Bold, Revert, Discuss and due weight. You made a bold edit which I reverted. You should now discuss your edits on the talk page and attempt to garner a consensus. I consider your edits to be undue. Please familiarize yourself with WP:TERTIARY and its role in evaluating due weight. Widely-used internationally-recognized modern undergraduate text-books (but not research monographs or journal articles) are considered tertiary sources. The lead of the Mughal Empire restricts its sourcing to tertiary sources. So please do discuss your proposed edits on the article's talk page, but please do not edit-war or communicate in edit summaries. Building a new consensus takes time. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@White Horserider: Would you please start using article talk pages? I looked through your contribution history and you've barely used it. Note that all the articles you edit are under discretionary sanctions (see the notice I posted above) and that you risk being topic banned, blocked, or otherwise sanctioned if you continue to edit the way you are currently doing so. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: Hmm..., Just one question; How you labelled work of scholars and Indologist like Dirhik Kolf, Andre Wink, R.C Majumdar as tertiary source ??? These books are published in CUP and OUP. Indeed, Ibrahim Lodhi was a incompetent ruler who easily got smashed in Panipat whereas Rana Sanga turned traditional kingdom of Mewar into a major power of north-western India. Can't see any major issue in adding the fact that khanua was more historic than Panipat. (with multiple WP:RS).White Horserider (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not here, but on the Talk:Mughal Empire in the section I have already opened. That is where you should be making your case and that is where I will reply when I find the time. Thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prithviraj Chauhan. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RegentsPark (comment) 00:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark:; No, Sir edit war means removing sourced material which I never did. What I have done till now is adding more and contrasting material not removing anything. Thanks.White Horserider (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@White Horserider: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions" (from WP:EW). "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable" (also from WP:EW). Bottom line, it doesn't matter whether your content is sourced or unsourced, repeatedly reinserting your content is edit warring so please be careful. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: Ok, I got it now and definately will follow your notice sincerely. But main issue is many of editors in South Asian historical topic don't want anything which shatters their long-standing BS. Anyway you are spot on. White Horserider (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of being blocked

You need to start using the talk page instead of reverting. You're too new to understand our policies and guidelines and you are reverting experienced editors who do understand them. I also see you reverted sourced text because it is in the lead - as the lead summarises the article, most of its content should be drawn from the body of the article. In fact sources aren't always needed in the lead if they are in the body of the article. If you get topic banned you won't be able to even discuss any topics covered by the discretionary sanctions notice above. You might instead be blocked from editing articles leaving you free to use the talk page. The best way to avoid any of this is to use the talk page first, and follow BRD which is mentioned above. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Thanks; I will take care of this in future. I mostly add content from acadaemic works from top publishers like Cambridge, Oxford etc. But from now onwards, I will follow your instructions.White Horserider (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tedious but in the end usually more productive - and of course I presume you'd like to become a respected editor rather than a pain. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: I take that issue on article's talk page now. White Horserider (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@White Horserider: In this edit you pinged a number of users for their input. FYI, pinging like minded users is called WP:CANVASSING and is frowned upon on Wikipedia. If you want to get broader input, it is better to leave a message at a noticeboard (e.g., on WT:IN) or on the talk page of another, more heavily watched article (e.g., Talk:Rajput). --RegentsPark (comment) 00:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark:: Ok dear; It wasn't aware about this guideline earlier, I thought more ping means more input from intersted editors. This was a genuine mistake and I do apologize for this, won't repeat it in future. White Horserider (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@White Horserider: At Prithviraj Chauhan, from 15 to 19 June 2021, you have made an edit five times: diff + diff + diff + diff + diff. If you make that edit again without first gaining consensus on article talk, I will issue a long block. The same thing applies to other articles—your quota of edit warring has been exhausted. Any further edit warring will lead to blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller:, @RegentsPark:, @Johnuniq:. I think @White Horserider: is well past the stage continuing to receive only slaps on the wrist. He has held up the talk page (and in the process competent editors) with nonstop random musings. I am also seriously beginning to consider that he and two others there (one of as recent vintage has him) are engaging in meat puppetry. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi White Horserider,

I wished to talk to you but found that your email is not registered in the account. Please update one so that we can have some private talk. 2402:3A80:9BA:A26A:1902:F432:8A8A:7A95 (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2021 (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 Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan. Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for harassment and personal attacks

The tone in caste-related talkpages tends to get hot, but calling an opponent racist, as you do here is completely beyond the pale. You have been blocked for 72 hours for harassment and personal attacks. Please also refrain from lowering the general tone into the abyss as you do for example here[1][2][3], when discussing a scholar with whom you appear to be on a first name basis. (Are you really? Or is it just that you think it's proper to refer to female scholars in a careless way?) If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 16:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

June 2021

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. —SpacemanSpiff 13:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]