Discretionary sanctions alerts

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. Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 10:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars
The Barnstar of Diligence You've gotten through the worst of it, and you're a fully-fledged member of the community now! :D Congratulations on getting unblocked! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] The Civility Barnstar For patiently responding on the talk pages and setting an example on WP:CIVIL. good work. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry about the previous edits I made. I was making edits from my POV and I know that Bajrang dal is a disputed area here on wikipedia. I really am sorry and as I am new to the platform could you please tell me how to find relevant sources regarding the article Bajrang Dal as we do not believe it to be a "militant organization" whereas it COULD be represented as a "paramilitary organization". please help thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbsic (talk • contribs) 05:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Superbsic, firstly I would recommend responding to the incidents page which would be the appropriate place to address your previous edits. Secondly, please thoroughly go through the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and then provide reliable sources which support the changes you want to make. To understand what reliable sources mean, see WP:RS where you will also find the appropriate instructions on how to find relevant sources.

That said, since you mentioned that "we do not believe it to be a militant organization". I must ask, are you by any means affiliated to the Bajrang Dal or any related organisation? If so you will need to disclose that before requesting any changes or editing that article per the conflict of interest guideline. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rumi on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:122.170.146.220&diff=cur

I provided the edit summaries and accurate reasonings. None of the sources support the information which I removed.

Be careful with your editing. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No you did not do that. You removed references, the content supported by it and added a unverifiable dead link. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the dead link with web.archive link and also a workable recent reliable source. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The new RS that you've cited itself calls him an "Arya Samaj scholar" which is something you have removed. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere it called him "Arya Samaj scholar".[1] It only calls him "Arya Samaj leader" just because he was one sometime in his life. Why it needs to be mentioned on lead? Being a part of "Arya samaj" is not same as being a politician or a social activist. The article of TribuneIndia also lays out that "He was expelled from the organisation in August 2008 after 17 of the 19 Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabhas in India expressed opposition to him." The lead must reflect that he was no longer associated with the organisation. The current version is misleading. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An old version of this claims that he was the leader of Arya Samaj council from 2004-2014. Do you have an independent source which confirmed this information and didn't got it from Wikipedia? Lots of media is taking information from Wikipedia. TribuneIndia makes no mention of this dubious post.[2] There must be zero doubt that he was a leader of the council, from 2004, but not after 2008 when he was expelled from the organisation. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribune obituary is a media source as well and it's omission of the post isn't a repudiation. It is clearly mentioned in both articles from The Hindu (RSP entry) and The Indian Express (RSP entry) that are already cited in the lead.^[1][2] There's articles from 2014 which also mention his position, for instance this article from The Hindu and this article from The Guardian (RSP entry).

If Agnivesh's supposed expulsion in 2008 wasn't a permanent affair, then it doesn't belong in the lead. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why you restore original research "arya samaj scholar" then leave a bogus template on my talk page?[3] You need to act better than this.

I agree that his post from 2004 - 2014 can remain but why you are censoring the information that he was expelled from Arya Samaj? It was not temporary. But permanent. He was not a member of primary Arya Samaj group. Where is the source to confirm otherwise? 122.170.146.220 (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't restore original research, the "arya samaj scholar" was cited to an article of the Pune Mirror which you removed in Special:Diff/978133165.The warning template was quite appropriate, since you assumed something without it being explicitly stated by one source and the other source directly contradicting your addition. You've also gone well beyond the 3-revert rule which I would highly recommend avoiding and to self revert, you can always insert your addition once a discussion is over. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was expelled from Arya Samaj in 1976. I found multiple expert sources on Arya Samaj here who are also academic. Religion and Politics in India: A Study of the Role of Arya Samaj, written by Anupama Arya, published by K.K. publications, 2001, noted "Swami Agnivesh and their other four followers from the primary membership of the Arya Samaj for indiscipline and misuse of the money of the Punjab Arya Pratinidhi Sabha in its general body meeting held on November 22, 1976." While The Legacy of Women's Uplift in India: Contemporary Women Leaders in the Arya Samaj, written by J E Llewellyn, and published by SAGE Publishing, noted that "Specifically, the international headquarters, the Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, summarily voted to expel Agnivesh. When I interviewed him, Agnivesh told me that this had had little impact on his activities either within the Arya Samaj or outside it. ' It didn't affect us at all,' he said. 31 Yet the expulsion has never been formally lifted, even 20 years later."

These sources are more reliable than the sources you mentioned above. This information, in fact, correct, because Arya Samaj clarified in 1978 that "Agnivesh and Indervesh were expelled from the primary membership of the Samaj two years ago"[4] and also in 2008 (30 years later) that "Swami Agnivesh has nothing to do with Arya Samaj".[5]

Actually, now I assume this has been resolved now. If you want to reinstate any information related to his relationship with Arya Samaj, then you would need much more reliable sources rebutting these sources. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources are of course more reliable than media source, but there's a number of issues with the sources you have provided here. For one, K.K.Publishers is a commercial oriented publication which has both reliable and unreliable books, the author of this book in particular is likely neither independent nor an academic, OneIndia is also an aggregator which doesn't do a good job of publicising its source and hence can't be considered reliable.

Among the sources which are reliable, there are discrepancies where you can't pick and choose which to use in accordance with your convenience.

Llewellyn, J. E. (1998). The Legacy of Women's Uplift in India: Contemporary Women Leaders in the Arya Samaj. SAGE Publications. p. 195. doi:10.1177/097152150100800217.

Specifically, the international headquarters, the Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, summarily voted to expel Agnivesh. When I interviewed him, Agnivesh told me that this had had little impact on his activities either within the Arya Samaj or outside it. "It didn't affect us at all," he said. 31 Yet the expulsion has never been formally lifted, even 20 years later.

Fani, S. N.; Sahi, Manu (15 April 1978). "Arya Samajis fight over control of Gurukul Kangri University in Hardwar". India Today.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link) (republished on 16 February 2015).

If the idea behind the Arya Samaj was triggered off by a few rats crawling over an idol of Shiva, it is, in a way, symbolic that there should be a virtual rat race for control of the organization. Lately, the Arya Samaj has been ridden with faction fighting (...) bespectacled owner of a shop in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. "Everybody is with us, except for two or three followers of the swamis. Agnivesh and Indervesh were expelled from the primary membership of the Samaj two years ago because they had embezzled some money."

Note: The "bespactacled owner of a shop" isn't "Arya Samaj" as you have claimed.

Long, Jeffery D. (2011). Historical Dictionary of Hinduism (2 ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-5381-2294-5.

Agnivesh Swami (1939– ). Founder and president of the World Council of the Ārya Samāj, an organization distinct from the Ārya Samāj, a Hindu reform organization established in 1875 by Swāmī Dayānanda Sarasvatī (...) Due to a variety of internal controversies, Swami Agnivesh was expelled from the Arya Samaj in 1992, but he continues to claim fidelity to the original ideals of the organization and its founder.

There's by now three seperate dates which allude towards a expulsion, one in 1976, one in 1992 and one in 2008 (per The Tribune obituary). The references all however points towards a splintering of the original organisation into a disorganised movement. The media sources are also not incorrect in that he was the president of the "World Council of Arya Samaj," which is undisputed and you have removed it for some reason? He can also still be described as an Arya Samaji (or any of its variation) as has been done by multiple reliable sources which I have already shown previously especially when its unclear what state Arya Samaj is in right now. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Tribune India copied Wikipedia article such as this one. So they hold no credibility here. Just like all other sources who are copy pasting from Wikipedia than doing their own researches. What "he was the president of the "World Council of Arya Samaj,"? Do you have any official source from Arya Samaj confirming this? On Google, I see this title being only associated with Agnivesh.

He was not expelled in 2008, it was misrepresentation done on Wikipedia by miscalculating this Daily pioneer source which was published in 2008, but nowhere said he was expelled in 2008.

He cannot be described as "Arya Samaji" since he was expelled from the organisation and he himself confessed he was expelled. Being "arya samaji" is not a profession anyway per MOS:OPENPARABIO. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rowman & Littlefield book itself states that he is the founder and president of World Council of the Arya Samaj. Which is confirmed by the various media article, which give an exact time period of his presidency. In light of the book itself, it can probably be stated that this Council is a group distinct from the original Arya Samaj which isn't something that was explicitly stated in the media source but as I previously said omission wouldn't amount to repudiation.

At times some papers do tend to copy from Wikipedia but are you seriously claiming that all of them have copied from Wikipedia and invented this "world council"? The Tribune article itself does not mention this, its the one which gives the expulsion date of 2008, which wasn't in the article. Even if we dis-regard all the media sources the discrepancy regarding the expulsion will still stand even while using only academic sources. The Daily Pioneer source is also likely an unattributed press release from somewhere.

MOS:OPENPARABIO doesn't state anything about profession. It refers to roles and activities, for which we are taking cues from secondary sources. Being an Arya Samaji, Arya Samaj leader or Arya Samaj scholar, whatever you want to call it is pretty noteworthy activity and would merit inclusion in the first paragraph. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was an improvement than what you are blabbering so far, but it was still pretty senseless for the reasons I have provided on the talk page. We can continue there. 122.170.146.220 (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate: Are comments disallowed at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput/FAQ? I don't see the mechanism. NedFausa (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a talk page, that's the FAQ template which shows up at the top of Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate: Yes, I understand that. But how does one comment on the content of this FAQ page—how is consensus for inclusion achieved? NedFausa (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One can comment on the talk page such as under the section Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput § FAQ draft. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Neverball on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Committee for a Workers' International (1974) on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at The Hindu § Section about controversies and criticisms is missing. — Vaibhavafro ^💬 16:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Hello, I'm Heba Aisha. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rashtriya Lok Samata Party 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. Hi...i think it happened inadvertently. Plz see the newspaper source i provided which contain a table which explicitly writes rhe vote share as per election commision data . If you don't understand hindi i will explain it to the articles talk page. Feel free to ping me. ThanksTemplate:Z186 Heba Aisha (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha, I am not the best at Hindi but I can still read it. I would also suggest self-reverting because there are too many issues in your edit, if you want to add vote shares of the party itself then you should create a separate subheading instead of inserting it at a random place under the section on history (see Indian National Congress for example). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

will do it when get time.Heba Aisha (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha, I'm sorry but I will have to revert back. You can create a separate section on vote shares, the reference itself is still present in the article and please keep it on point, it's not supposed to be listing of vote shares of every other party in the assembly. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original research was in reference to your edit in the last paragraph with lines such as "the factionalism in the RLSP went unbated even during the 2020 Bihar Assembly Elections" and "this caused Bhudeo Choudhary, the State president of RLSP to leave the party and join Rashtriya Janata Dal before before the elections" which are not explicitly supported by any source. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That also is not original research see.Singh, Santosh (2020-10-01). "In Bihar, alliances try to outdo each other for larger share of Dalit votes". The Indian Express. Retrieved 2020-10-04.((cite web)): CS1 maint: url-status (link)Heba Aisha (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha, it says Bhudeo Choudhary left RLSP to join the RJD but not because RLSP left the Grand Alliance. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tewary, Amarnath (2020-09-29). "Upendra Kushwaha out of 'mahagathbandhan', stitches new alliance with BSP". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2020-10-04. Here is the source for that too.Heba Aisha (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Aisha, it's the same. I've have searched for this already, the sources that mention Bhudeo Choudhary state that he left the RLSP to join the RJD after RLSP left the Grand Alliance/Mahagathbandhan. But they do not explicitly state that he left because of it so we can not state the RLSP's exit caused Choudhary's exit. If you read the paragraph after my edit, you'll get what I'm saying. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i got it now Have a good day and happy editing.Heba Aisha (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untill discussion is over the editing of content under discussion amount to WP:Vandalism...discussion can go for 30 days.Plz be aware with rules of WP:RfcHeba Aisha (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]