Hello, Shakespeare143, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mosesheron (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shakespeare143, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, you may be blocked from editing. Vikram Vincent 08:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a previous caution implies that you have seen it. My suggestion is to discuss contentious edits on the article talk page first. Vikram Vincent 08:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to List of wars by death toll. Materialscientist (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'd do well to take the advice above, to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. It answers most of the questions you're asking. Cabayi (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I'll go do that. Shakespeare143 (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this The_Great_Big_Book_of_Horrible_Things page? I think the statistics you want to quote are already summarised there so no need to make redundant copies. Also, blog and other sources that do not conform to WP:RS would be reverted. Posting here since it is tedious to respond on the multiple articles talk pages you had edited. VV 10:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just clicked on the The_Great_Big_Book_of_Horrible_Things page. I see the ranking of the disasters, but I the purpose of the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll page is to try to rank different disasters by type of disaster. Matthew White's ranking is what he wrote, and the list on List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll has different numbers than his list. So because List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll is trying to list disasters of the world, I think it would be okay to include statistics that happen to match his list. I'll go look into which of the articles I had in mind do not conform to WP:RS. Shakespeare143 (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can simply add the wikilink to White's page in the "See also" section. My suggestion is to not go changing multiple pages which will again get challenged. The discussion has just begun on some article talk pages and in others it hasn't. Plus, religious books are not considered WP:RS. VV 11:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please check the citation formating as you did on "History of Hinduism". It is broken. Also use named refs when quoting from the same source multiple times. VV 11:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VincentvikramOk, I actually was not citing any religious scriptures, I was citing a different source. I looked at my sources and updated a few. For the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article things I wanted to add, only 2 of them used info from White. I don't think just because an atrocity is already included on The_Great_Big_Book_of_Horrible_Things means that it should not also be on List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll. I don't see anything wrong with the rest of the sources/info. What do you think?Shakespeare143 (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram. I'll also be more careful when editing articles when doing the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Shakespeare143 (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the other articles where you are using data from scriptures. Ive added a few more observations. Will look at others a little later. VV 00:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram Ok, for the Astronomy article, the info I'm proposing to add actually comes from non-religious sources. I am just using the non-religious sources as my sources, and the non-religious sources are talking about religious scriptures.

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:Christianity_in_India#Northeast_India. VV 19:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram. All I did was post on the talk page. I posted a proposition to add to the article. The reason I posted it there was because I wanted to see what other people thought about it and to get consensus. Therefore, can you explain to me why you think I was aggressive? Every person has their own opinion of NPOV, therefore to avoid conflicts I posted the proposition in the Talk page because I thought it might be controversial. I am open to discussions, and that is what is happening. Anyway, there is the Be Bold policy on Wikipedia, but because I thought that proposition might be controversial, I posted it on the Talk forum. Additionally, I originally posted that proposition into the page 8 days ago, and then it got removed. I posted the exact same phrasing on the Talk page because I was confused on exactly how it was POV pushing, and therefore you explained to me why you thought it was POV in the Talk page, so I appreciate the discussion. Therefore, can you remove the warning about how I could be blocked from editing without warning next time someone thinks I violated Wikipedia' NPOV?

Shakespeare143 (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is covered under Discretionary Sanctions, the requirements even on talk pages are tight. The use of phrases like "Christian(replace with any religion) terrorism" is POV pushing.

VV 20:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincentvikram Thank you for the advice. Shakespeare143 (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shakespeare143! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 14:38, Wednesday, April 7, 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the Veda's, at least not the ritual hymns, are about "the experiencing Self," as Kak claims here, but it very nicely highlights the essence: what is this "experiencing Self"? Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan Which Wikipedia article is this about?Shakespeare143 (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Kak of course diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan I think when Kak mentions the "Experiencing self" I think he is referring to the sense of I-ness that people have, like their own conscious individuality. I'm really not sure what he means.

No, he means 'the observator', centerless awareness. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about this Discretionary Sanctions Alert. Shakespeare143 (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Indo-Aryan peoples, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback.Shakespeare143 (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reverted diff your huge WP:WALLOFTEXT at Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations. It was beyond reasonable. Please use your sandbox to draft cogent posts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3Thank you for your suggestion.Shakespeare143 (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 I will try to make it shorter, but I think that most of the things I wrote are relevant. And they address many points that benefit the discussion, including things that people have not brought up before as well as new analysis. I did not know there was a sandbox, so I'll look into it.Shakespeare143 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare143, I can sense that your intentions are good, but I read the text that Kautilya3 removed, and really, it is useless. You sum-up the usual Indigenist writers, none of which have any relevance in normal scholarship on this topic. Lal's latest book, The R̥igvedic People:'invaders'?/'immigrants'? Or Indigenous?, for instance, has 14 (fourteen) citations at Google Scholar, including 4 (four) from Danino. Danino himself only tentatively suggests that the Vedas may be much older. Incompatible with the dating of the Sintashta-culture. Borsboom, arguing that the IVC-people were seafaring at 7,500 BCE: far, far out. The predecessors of the IVC were living in pits at that time.

Your knowledge of the topic seems to be based on their writings, not normal publications. You really should read some of the standard works, that is, Anthony's The Horse, or Mallory's encyclopedia. And Narasimhan (2019). Or, as a bare minimum, the Wiki-adticles on Indo-European migrations and Indo-Aryan migrations.

Indigenism is simply totally incompatable with the accepted facts. The fact that it has some support in India (some; we've plenty of Indian editors who conside Indigenism to be crackpottery), and is mindlessly parotted by Indian newsmedia, does not mean that it has any relevance in normal scholarship. It hasn't. It's a parallel universum, inhabited by people living in a politico-religious bubble.

Before you repeat yourself: read those sources. Sober up. Get yourself informed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for recommending those sources. I'll go check them out. I have read much of the Wiki articles on Indo-Europeans migrations and Indo-Aryan migrations and much written by Migrationist and AIT scholar proponents. Some of the ones that consider it to be "crackpottery" just parrot what Doniger say because that is the view they have been conditioned to support for various political-religious-ideological-ethnic-nationalistic reasons. What's interesting to note is that I have not read about AIT/AMT proponents trying to bring attention to the nearly 40 million Ancient Indian (more than the entire corpus of all Latin and Greek texts combined) untranslated and unanalyzed manuscripts in India, while I have read about OIT proponents talk about them. It seems that the AIT/AMT proponents may not be comfortable with analyses of these texts for some reason. I Shakespeare143 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shakespeare143! Your additions to History of Hinduism have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, this is all very helpful information. You are correct, I should not have made that edit. Shakespeare143 (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not post original research. Thank you for the suggestions.Shakespeare143 (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did add synthesis; the content you added can only be sourced to a press release, and you presented that content in Wikipedia's voice. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions; I appreciate the feedback. I used a press release. Shakespeare143 (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 Ok, I understand what you mean now. Sorry, I was confused by what you meant and I originally thought you meant using a press release is good, hence why I said "I used a press release".Shakespeare143 (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Shakespeare143. Thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93Thank you for letting me know. What do you mean by: "...regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision"?Shakespeare143 (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's standard wording from the notification template, but in this case, it's referring to the discretionary sanctions that exist for India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, that you were notified about above. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. Who decides if an editor is not following NPOV and other rules? Can only administrators decide that? Also I'm a bit confused by the Arbitration Enforcement page. What is the page for and what happens? Sorry for asking so many questions, it is just that I have not been posted on the page before. Thank you for answering my questions.Shakespeare143 (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In certain areas where the arbitration committee has authorized discretionary sanctions, yes, administrators may take action when they decide that editors are not following policy. The arbitration enforcement noticeboard is a place where one may ask for uninvolved admins to examine the conduct of other editors, as I have done. We now wait for other admins to examine the report. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you.Shakespeare143 (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Please read WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction 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 procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]