Jkraipeen
Welcome!
|
Jkraipeen, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi Jkraipeen! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC) |
List of Rajputs
editHi, please could you familiarise yourself with the information at WP:RS and User:Sitush/Common#Castelists before adding information to List of Rajputs. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry sir. But I dont see any consensus there. What we are supposed to follow is WP:BLP and WP:RS. Any edits according to these should be welcomed.
Caste is nothing but ethnicity just like in middle east, there are Kurds, Yazids, Arabs and Copts. And as per WP:BLP, we dont need self-identification for ethnicity and so for caste. When we dont need self-identification for Dt of birth, place of birth, father's name or High School, then we dont need it for caste as well. If we have a reliable source, we can add caste to these people's articles as I think caste is an important thing and without caste, these articles seem incomplete and encyclopedia articles are not supposed to be incomplete.-Jkraipeen (talk)
September 2016
edit
Hello, I'm Sitush. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of Rajputs, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
I refer you again to my message above. If the person is living then the source must show self-identification. Sitush (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.The above is because of your continued behaviour at List of Rajputs but, of course, it applies across all articles to which it refers. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Kindly respond in the above section. -Jkraipeen (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at List of Rajputs. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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.
- You are repeatedly adding violations of our policy regarding living people. There is nothing to discuss - just read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists and stop doing it. Sitush (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality-This is our policy and User:Sitush/Common#Castelists- this is your policy. We can't be made bound to follow your policy. What you are trying to call a consensus seems like a forced judgement by a court judge. The point of discussion was something else. You kept on saying self-identification, but others emphasized on reliable sources. At the end, you added conclusion of your own choice.
You say self-identification. Now should I take interview of these famous people to confirm their caste so as to add that here on WP? What non-sense! -Jkraipeen (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)–
- No, User:Sitush/Common#Castelists is not my policy. Read it properly, including the links to community discussions. If you do not self-revert now then I think it is inevitable that you will be blocked from contributing here. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I notice that you've also been making similar inappropriate edits at individual biographies, eg: Ravindra Jadeja and N. Dharam Singh. Your unwillingness to abide by the community's consensus is creating a lot of work for those people who then have to clean up the mess. I say it again: do not state the alleged caste of a living person unless you have a reliable source that shows they self-identify as being a member of that caste. It's usually not even relevant to their notability anyway, so there isn't any great need to show it. - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have reverted you again at List of Rajputs. Violations of WP:BLP simply cannot be allowed to stand. - Sitush (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)