Misplaced Pages

User talk:Soham321: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:03, 31 July 2015 editSoham321 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,262 edits →Hey: tweak← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:04, 19 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(291 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{| style="width: 100%; background-color: #FFFFF0; border: 3px solid #E2725B; padding: 10px; margin-bottom: 8px; vertical-align: top;"
Use
| colspan=3 style="vertical-align:top" |
<!-- Template:Welcomelaws -->
{{Quote box2
;Welcome!
|width = 30%
Hello and ] to ]. Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Misplaced Pages:
|border = 1px
*]
|align = right
*]
|bgcolor =
*]
|fontsize = 1em
*]
|title_bg = #F5DEB3
*]
|title_fnt =
*]
|title =
*]
|halign = top
|quote = I am primarily interested in editing WP pages on philosophy, history, and literature.
|salign =
|source =
}}


{{semi-retired}}
;Please bear these points in mind while editing Misplaced Pages:
* ] – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
* Maintain a ] – this is one of Misplaced Pages's core policies.
* Take particular care while adding biographical material about a ] to any Misplaced Pages page and follow ]. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be ] with multiple ].
* No ] or ].
* If you are testing, please use the ] to <span class="plainlinks"></span>.
* Do not add troublesome content to any ], such as: ]ed text, ], ] or ], and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered ]; doing so will result in your account or IP being ].
* Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Misplaced Pages is ].


== ]: Voting now open! ==
== Eraly ==


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Soham321. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
Where is Eraly ? Certainly not at Google Books in the US or UK, nor at Amazon, DSAL and a few other regular "go to's". - ] (]) 03:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
:See here ] (]) 03:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
::See ]. - ] (]) 04:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Interesting. ] (]) 04:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== Babur ==


If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Can you please read ]. Some of the stuff isn't necessary. We usually only use links on the first occurrence of the word/term. Thanks. - ] (]) 14:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
:ok. will keep this in mind.] (]) 14:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/44&oldid=750786920 -->
==] nomination of ]==
]
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a ], {{#if:|at ]|such as at ]}}. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.


== Trump Sexual Misconduct ==
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-repost-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 23:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


It's not RS because the butler is clearly not independent and is also intensely "loyal" to Mr. Trump, as a good butler often is. If you don't like "not RS" then it's clearly UNDUE. Just because a self-serving statement is repeated in the news media does not make it well-sourced content for an encyclopedia. Please undo your reinsertion, which is a violation of DS, and state your view on talk. Thanks. ]] 16:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
== June 2015 ==
] Your addition to ] has been removed, as it appears to have added ] material to Misplaced Pages without ] from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read ] for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''content'', such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators '''will be ]'''. ''


== Muhammad Ali ==


Greetings fella. You might want to keep an eye on the article at this very time, as there's a touch of edit-warring going on regarding title reign stats. I won't be able to check for another twelve hours. ] (]) 05:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
What are you doing at ]? You are adding content that often is not relevant and that has been copied verbatim from books, eg: . The hope is that the article can be brought up to ] standard but instead you are taking it further away.''<!-- Template:uw-copyright --> ] (]) 05:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


My source from Muhammad Ali's page on Boxrec.com: On September 14, 1964, Ali was stripped of the World Boxing Association title for signing to fight Sonny Liston in a rematch. The contract for their first fight included a return clause, which the WBA did not allow.
:I am trying to paraphrase and summarize to the extent possible while always giving the references, and recognizing that wikipedia articles are not the place for original research. Perhaps my edits could be paraphrased or summarized more adequately, but i challenge you to give a single edit where i have quoted verbatim from anywhere. This challenge applies even to the reference you have given. Could you please stop with the intimidation and start practicing more polite collaboration? In case you haven't noticed, i am not a newbie anymore.] (]) 05:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


Ali was WBA heavyweight champion 4 times. From February 25, 1964 to September 14, 1964. From February 6, 1967 to April 28, 1967. From October 30, 1974 to February 15, 1978. And finally from September 15, 1978 to September 6, 1979. It is on the BoxRec.com website. Please allow me to correct this ] (]) 15:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.


https://books.google.com/books?id=NN4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=sonny+liston+wba+heavyweight+champion&source=bl&ots=HvzAMIKSdk&sig=C41zZ5KG9_e-N1pmhTnLRJHqaM8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuwpH67trQAhUFxWMKHYULDJI4FBDoAQgcMAE#v=onepage&q=sonny%20liston%20wba%20heavyweight%20champion&f=false
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] 09:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


This article from Ebony magazine will prove that both Sonny Liston and Muhammad Ali were recognized as champions by the WBA. And that Ali was stripped of the WBA title before regaining it against Terrell ] (]) 15:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
== ANI ==


== Biographies of living people ==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 09:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


With reference to :
== June 2015 ==
# There is nothing "peculiar" about asking for urgent admin action to prevent BLP violations - particularly when the offender has been given multiple chances to retract. ] is the correct venue for that.
] Hi there! Thank you for ] to ].
# There is no "AE report": it is an "AE ban appeal" and it was Hidden Tempo's choice to open it. That does not give him immunity from sanctions for BLP violations.
# Misplaced Pages takes any violation of BLP policy extremely seriously. This isn't a trivial matter or even a matter just for Misplaced Pages. The Wikimedia Foundation board was concerned enough to pass a resolution on the issue - see ].
I'd urge you to thoroughly read ] if you're going to be contributing to biographies of living people – even more thoroughly if you're editing in an area subject to ]. --] (]) 19:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


{{u|RexxS}} i've thought about this and i am in complete agreement with you as far as the ] policy is concerned. Besides everything else it is a fool proof method to place the burden of responsibility for any negative content about the living person on the referenced source. I wish we could have explained this more gently to Hidden Tempo keeping in mind the fact that he is a new editor. ] (]) 19:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
{{The edit-summary field}}
:
: Thank you for your understanding. As a sort of "olive branch" to HT, I've tried to make some specific suggestions on how to make use of the NBC News source on ]. I arrived late to this party after I saw his post on Bishonen's talk page, as I don't follow US politics. Nevertheless, I do agree that it's a pity somebody didn't explain more to him earlier. Cheers --] (]) 19:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


==Reply==
I noticed your recent edit to ] does not have an ].&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
To :
#If someone was not a new user, this is not a problem. He simply might have a previous on-wiki experience. No one was talking about ]. This is something I did not investigate.
#Providing an opinion about a user who appealed their topic ban on AE is fine. The opinion was based on diffs and other comments provided by other users on the page. This is not WP:BATTLE. I never interacted with this user before.
#Commenting about WP-related essays or other materials written by other contributors is also fine.
In brief, nowhere in my statement I made a bad faith assumption. Please reconsider. ] (]) 19:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
::Since you continue doing this on WP:AE , I would like to clarify that no, I do not agree with your comment, and I did not take anything "seriously" because there is no way to consider my comment a BLP violation. I hatted it to simply minimize disruption that you created by filing this duplicate ANI request instead of discussing this with me here. ] (]) 20:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


::{{u|My very best wishes}}, my understanding of WP policy is that had you not hatted it you would have received a warning and an Admin would have hatted it on your behalf. As I mentioned your comment involved multiple violations. Read these comments for why others think your comment was inappropriate: and . ] (]) 20:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Edit summary content is visible in:
:::No, I did not receive any warnings, and I would not receive any warnings. This is because my comment was not a BLP violation or any other violation. Does it really matter now? ], unless you want to debate this to nausea. ] (]) 20:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] and
* ]


Here is the for anyone reading this page. ] (]) 20:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC) And a follow-up diff showing ] (]) 20:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes.
Thanks!<!-- Template:uw-editsummary --> ] (]) 14:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
:I don't see the point of including edit summaries in ANI discussions. Sorry. I do agree that edit summaries should ordinarily be given when editing any wikipedia article and normally i do give them. Sometimes if it is a question of adding a quote or comma or something small then i may not give it, but usually even here i do so. Sometimes i may not give the edit summary inadvertently. But for important edits i have been known to revert my own edit just so that i could put it back up again with the appropriate edit summary. ] (]) 15:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
::The only thing that comes to mind is that it helps recent changes patrollers like me decide whether or not we need to check and see if the edit was vandalism. ] (]) 21:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


== My editorial judgement was not vindicated ==
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br>
Please be particularly aware that ] states:
# '''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 ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 15:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
::Your past history of assuming ownership of any article on which you are editing means these warnings of yours have no legitimacy. Your edit is completely nonsensical having no basis on facts. The caste system was not a creation of the British as you are falsely claiming in your edit; there are several mentions and descriptions of the caste system in ancient and medieval India. Your claim that i am stalking you (you made this claim in an edit summary of the main article) is laughable considering that you started editing certain wikipedia pages immediately after i started editing them. I refer now to ] page and the ] magazine page. Your zeal to try and have the last word on India related pages is particularly amusing considering you have a poor opinion of Indians as reflected by one of your earlier posts: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=666714511 ] (]) 16:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


Kingsindian has made a cogent argument for why Gilberthorpe is not a credible witness, and I accept his rationale, so you might want to remove that part of your post. (For the record, I became involved in the misconduct article primarily because a careful reading of the sources—and some OR—persuaded me that the claims about Trump running pageants for his own benefit and being free to barge into dressing rooms at his leisure are dubious; at the very least, Misplaced Pages's refusal to acknowledge the "counter-witnesses" interviewed by ''Buzzfeed'' et al. in the "Miss Teen USA" section—even though they were in the ''majority''—struck me as an odd editorial omission. I've never had an interest in the "he-said, she-said" of the groping accusations, other than to note that the timing four weeks before an election and the ensuing saturation coverage created the risk of a pile on effect—] accusing Trump one day prior to the launch of her new "online sex store," for example, certainly raises questions about possible ulterior motives. That said, the Trump camp's claims need to be scrutinized as well, and they probably shouldn't have put Gilberthorpe forward. In sum—while I wouldn't call this a damning indictment of my editing—I was in no sense "vindicated.")] (]) 07:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
== ARBIPA notification ==


{{u|TheTimesAreAChanging}}, I am making a clarification about this in the AE discussion. ] (]) 14:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''


== Trump misconduct ==
'''Please carefully read this information:'''


Soham, the reason that TTAAC's content stayed in the article so long is that few other editors are prepared to edit war in violation of ARBAP2. Basically, once it was reverted ARBAP2 tells us to keep it out so that the matter can be resolved on talk before reinsertion. When an editor violates this and reinserts disputed content on an article subject to this sanction, other editors will generally stand back rather than reinsert it only to set up another round of edit-warring. Your recent message at AE doesn't seem to reflect the DS restriction as the primary reason for the defective content's relative longevity there. ]] 21:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding ], ], and ], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ].
:That's incorrect. My edit was The content was later re-added by someone else.] (]) 21:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


== Re: twinkle issue ==
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. 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.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> ] (]) 21:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


Ah, good thing you told me. I didn't realise using the "" function on my end counts as reverting vandalism. I always thought it was identical to "(undo)". Will be more careful in future. ] (]) 21:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
== ANI ==


== Re: Feedback request ==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. -- ] (]) 21:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


Admittedly, anything to do with Ali's religious beliefs is completely outside my scope of interest. I only deal with the statistical side of things relating to his fights, namely record tables and succession boxes. You will likely garner more feedback from those who have been more active in maintaining the article as a whole. Sorry I can't be of any help in that aspect. ] (]) 16:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
*I just want to add the above ARBIPA notice is something you need to take serious. That allows any admin to unilaterally enforce a buffet of restrictions that we normally can't do. This includes topic banning your or blocking you. The authority is quite sweeping and the trigger is quite low on these particular topics that have been problem areas for years. You obviously feel strongly about the whole caste subject, but you are a minority on it so far. You need to use the talk page and present your information in a non-confrontational way to win over supporters. Hammering them won't work, and might be seen as disruptive. I tell you this to give you the best chance to avoid sanction, and to at least be able to present your case, but you have to do so in a inoffensive way, or it won't happen at all. ] - ] 01:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
:I think you have to give this at least a few days to play out. Let the other editors who are interested in this article be given an opportunity to voice their opinion. One editor had originally placed the tag of factual inaccuracy on the article, another had deleted the disputed material on three occasions, and a third has argued and edit warred with Sitush on article which deals with a similar issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/Herbert_Hope_Risley). Incidentally, i told this third editor (Kenfyre) on his talk page to take a look at content of the main article and talk page of https://en.wikipedia.org/Caste_system_in_India I am surprised that this is being held against me in ANI as if i was canvassing. Surely canvassing is permitted if it is a content dispute. ] (]) 01:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
::Canvassing isn't really allowed, but a singular notification is hardly anything to get excited about. Really, it isn't about me. I'm pretty patient, probably too patient. Right now another admin (and likely others) are looking at your edits and racially charged comments. Your smartest move would be to remove the tag, go to ANI and pledge you will keep it on the talk page and try to develop a consensus and work with others. Really, that is what we are here to do. You win some, you lose some. I have 50k edits, adminship, etc, but I still am in the minority from time to time when editing, and you know what? I suck it up and just accept it. We all have the same "rank" when it comes to editing, and while it isn't "majority rules", consensus is kind of like that, right or wrong. It is simply how the place works. Some people can't work with that, so they get blocked or topic banned. You need to demonstrate you can, or that will end up being your fate. Not so much by my hand, but by one of the 1600 other admins out there. ] - ] 01:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
::If you can acknowledge and show some signs of acting on the advice above I'd definitely be willing to give you a bit more leeway. This is a topic which attracts a ''lot'' of problems with relatively few people attempting to fix them, so admins are generally very heavy-handed because it's hard to keep a lid on things. If you can take the above feedback on board it shouldn't come to that, but persisting the way things have been going will definitely lead to sanctions. ] (]) 04:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
:::I removed the tag from the main article and i made a note of this in the ANI discussion (and also in the edit summary in the main article) with the comment that the discussion is continuing in the talk page of the article. What else am i supposed to do now? Just look at my recent edits on the talk page of the article and reflect on whether i am contributing to making the main article better or not: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Caste_system_in_India ] (]) 04:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
::::You're moving in the right direction. I think the next best move is go and discuss, but to stick to the facts, and as I said before, drop the hyperbole. Using phrases like "lunatic fringe" and talking about the race of the sources is asking for problems (and sanction). Stick to the facts. Right now, you are the only person with your point of view, so being obnoxious isn't a good tactic anyway, nor is bolding quotes. Honestly, they have been giving you good advice on that talk page, use it, and start treating everyone there as an EQUAL, even if you disagree with them. They ARE equals. Most importantly, keep it calm. It doesn't matter how "right" you think you are, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. If you can't get along with others in controversial topic areas, you tend to get removed. As Blade noted, admin are very heavy handed in India related topics but with good reason, and with the blessing of Arb Com and the community. Lastly, I'm not sure of your nationality, but here in the US we have an expression: "''You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.''" Your current methods are off-putting and aren't getting others to even consider your ideas. You don't win converts by telling others that their current beliefs are "lunatic". Tone it back a few notches and engage others instead of being so aggressive; ask more and tell less. Give them a chance to be persuaded, and if they aren't, then you just have to accept it. That is core to the ideals of collaboration and consensus. ] - ] 10:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Dennis Brown}}, if you think Soham is moving in the right direction, please look again. They are being incredible tendentious and disruptive, and not all of it can be ascribed to being new (partly because they are not, and partly because it has been explained to them but they continue to ignore). This is the sort of behaviour that puts people of editing caste-related articles: walls and walls of irrelevant text and repetition. - ] (]) 14:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::I'm going to issue one last final warning on this matter. Soham, I'm not as familiar with this subject as Sitush but even I can see that the edits laid out on my talkpage are patently disruptive. I would ''strongly'' recommend you find another topic to edit before I or another admin topic bans you and effectively forces you to do so. ] (]) 18:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You are welcome to ban me or block me. That is your prerogative as an Admin. I am also free to exercise my right to appeal your decision because you are being unreasonable now in my opinion. I did not respond to Sitush's provocative edit on my talk page, which was written after our interaction on your talk page, and the record shows i have been attempting to build consensus on the talk page of ] as per this diff: . Furthermore, i have confined my comments to the talk page of the article and have not made a single edit on the main article after receiving a warning. So feel free to ban me or block me, but i will not be told not to even make comments on the talk page of an article, particularly since it was after my comments that certain tags were placed on the main article by other posters and since the record shows i have attempted to build some kind of a consensus on the talk page. ] (]) 18:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Soham321, you are ] the issue, saying the same things over and over. You started with a couple of good moves, proper tagging, but you still don't get it. I tried to jump in to give you a day or two to get your act together, but it seems it was wasted time. If you keep beating this dead horse with the same rhetoric, I would support a block of at least one month under discretionary sanctions. Or give it myself. A topic ban would be too much work for the system. And while you are correct in that you can appeal, history has shown that it will fall on deaf ears. The community is sick of the headaches and willing to support strong moves by admin in these Arb related cases. ] - ] 21:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::I have followed your instruction not to make any edits on the main article. But i am unable to follow any instruction to the effect that i should not make any contribution to the talk page of the article since in my opinion my contributions have been positive. In fact the tags that are being seen on the main article now were placed after my comments on the talk page. Since you seem to have made up your mind, please block me but also let me know how i can take up this matter to the ] after i have been blocked. There have been several allegations in the past of Sitush getting editors who not agree with Sitush blocked or banned by repeatedly complaining to Admins (because Sitush is on friendly terms with many Admins), and many people have protested about this in the past. The allegation is that this is happening particularly in topics related to the Indian caste system. I will take this matter up with ArbCom, and i will give them the supporting diffs. I understand that Sitush has already received a warning from ArbCom in the recent past. ] (]) 21:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::Arb can be found at ] but for your own sake, I don't recommend it. And if my mind was made up, you would already be blocked. I'm trying to NOT block you. Like I said, you've made a couple decent moves, but hammering the same points over and over, then sparing with Sitush on another admin's talk page...not good ideas. Again, stick to the facts, or better yet, take a break from the article. ] - ] 21:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


== ] == == Reply to your note ==


{{tb|FT2}}
is a clear violation of ]. Please self revert and post a neutral message. &mdash;]''']''' 00:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Didn't see this until now. ]&nbsp;<sup><span style="font-style:italic">(]&nbsp;|&nbsp;])</span></sup> 16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


== Ali ==
:I was unaware of the prior history surrounding this, but it appears that you've been amply warned by {{User|The Blade of the Northern Lights}} and {{User|Dennis Brown}} already. Switching from one form of disruption to another is also not good. &mdash;]''']''' 00:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
::I made the edit based on the advice of {{User|Dennis Brown}}. Please take a look at his talk page. ] (]) 00:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
*When you post a notice, you have to be neutral, you aren't trying to sway opinions in that project post. Just say there is a discussion regarding the source for castes in India, and anyone interested in invited to participate. Don't give your opinions or details, just a notification. If the reader can tell your opinion from the posting, then it isn't neutral. You need to learn to make notices neutral, as Spiff is exactly correct, the way you did it is canvassing. ] - ] 00:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
:::Done. Thanks for the explanation. ] (]) 00:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi, Soham - I gave the article a quick look - it's a long one and will require some quiet time. I'll go back and give it a closer look after the weekend. I'm still trying to deal with the rapid expiration of yet another year!!! ]] <sup>]]]</sup> 00:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
== Caste system in India - POV pushing by group of editors ==


:{{u|Atsme}}, No worries. Take your time. ] (]) 00:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there is a discussion ]
Cheers. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
: You've done a great job on the talk page of the article. My suggestion is that now you should leave it to others (future editors) to fix this issue. I am not sure if its a good idea for me to participate in the ANI because if I do so you could be penalized for canvassing ( see ]). To avoid being penalized you should have referred to me or my posts in the ANI and then left a neutral comment here ( making no mention of any POV pushing on my talk page) saying you have mentioned me at ANI and that is why I should look at the ANI discussion taking place. If anyone brings up the issue of ] in the ANI, tell them the truth: you are new to this place and are not sure how the canvassing rule operates. If I feel my intervention in the ANI is absolutely necessary I shall intervene.] (]) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


== Re: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year ==
== Full citations ==


Hi Soham, you seem to be having trouble adding full citations to articles. Both the WikiEd and the WYSIWYG editors have buttons for adding citations. If you are unable to find them, please let me know and I can help. Cheers, ] (]) 08:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC) A happy Yule to you as well. The Muhammad Ali article continues to grow and improve thanks to your ongoing initiatives, and I suggest trying for a GA or FA nomination next year. ] (]) 21:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
==Merry, merry!==
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! ] (]) 22:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC) ]


== Twobells == == And a merry... ==


Thanks for your holiday greetings and the same wishes to you. ] (]) 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
{{u|Twobells}} is giving you very poor advice and has now removed my correction on their talk page. Please take note of . - ] (]) 20:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


== 2017 ==
:Ha! there is a typo in my linked reponse: the word is, of course, ''administrator''. Sorry about that. - ] (]) 20:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


Keep jabbing and moving! All the best ] (]) 23:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
:And to confuse you even more, Twobells has now and have done so ''after'' you had replied. You could easily miss seeing those changes, which is why doing things in that manner is usually considered to be bad practice. It might be better in future if you seek advice from someone with more ], otherwise you could get very confused and if you're planning to continue editing in the caste-related sphere then that could cause you problems in relation to the sanctions that are enforceable.
:If you don't know who to turn to, there is always the ]. - ] (]) 20:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
::I find it rather odd that you found anything noteworthy and 'unusual' in the fact that editors update their work Sitush. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
:::I am not surprised you find it odd. That is because you have fairly consistently demonstrated both cluelessness (remember nominating ] for deletion?) and a pugnacious style of contribution. You aren't doing Soham any favours here. I realise that Soham must be smarting from the failure of the appeal etc but ignoring your advice and interjections would be as good a starting point as any. Reinvigorating a thread that is nearly a month old isn't a great idea either - it isn't as if you have been absent in the interval. If you want to duke it out with me, I suggest you do it on my talk page and not here. - ] (]) 10:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
:::And I see that the issue of your refactoring posts after replies has been mentioned before, although you have just blanked ], which is where I . - ] (]) 11:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
::::What on earth are you on about,'duke it out'? Is that how you relate and behave with other editors? You just don't get it do you Sitush? I was in an on-going conversation with Soham and wanted to improve my response to him yet only you seem to have some sort of problem with that and the bigger question is why are you reading my talk history diffs in relation to another editor? Really Sitush, who do you think you are? And why refer to the British Raj article as an example of your so-called 'incompetence'? (anyone notice a pattern emerging here) At that time the article was more about Indian Independence than the British Raj. Also, why should I discuss it on your talk page? You brought me up here so here I respond because for some reason, at the time I did not get the notification that you had (for whatever bizarre reason) decided to discuss me here. As for referring to Soham321's appeal that is unworthy and against best wiki practice, something you seemingly know little about. I also notice that you still seem to in thrall to Pavlov's bell with your reference to other editors 'being incompetent' if they do not agree with your ideology, you must try harder and assume AGF rather than automatically revert to bellicose language in dealing with other editors Sitush. In reference to raising the issue of me editing my own talk page I delete comments and archives every year as ] at the very start of my talk page yet seemingly '''you''' seem to think there is some sort of conspiracy at work. Also, what you call 'refactoring' is actually an editor replying to comments so they make sense structurally, all a user has to do is check the history date to understand the chronology yet somehow again '''you''' seem to believe there is some sort of conspiracy going on, it's all rather sad. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think {{u|Twobells}} gave me any advice. Rather, i suggested to him to let me (and two other editors) know when he would be filing the RfC--of course i clarified that i was not certain whether his doing so would constitute canvassing. I also agree with Twobells's criticism about the way the editing on the ] article has been taking place. Thanks for the link to the helpdesk. ] (]) 00:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


== Merry Christmas and a Very Happy New Year! ==
:It ''would'' constitute canvassing and Twobells did not point that out, despite your query. Their criticism of the editing didn't even relate to the article in question. Anyway, it's up to you: Twobells has been blocked numerous times for edit warring and, amazingly, even tried to get the ] article deleted in 2012 - is that the sort of judgement from whom you should be seeking advice? I see it as a short road to a long block, given that the caste sanctions are in force. - ] (]) 06:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
]
::Sitush, if {{u|Twobells}} indulges in unallowable canvassing, how am i affected? After all, i am not the person who is doing the canvassing. My assessment of Twobells--from what i have seen of him so far-- is that he is a knowledgeable person who has a lot to contribute to this project. I am also impressed with the editing of {{u|Kenfyre}}; i notice you also have a problem with him. ] (]) 07:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Have a wonderful time over Christmas & New Year and thanks so much for your seasons greetings! ] (]) 13:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
==Re: Thanks==
From my tlak page" Thanks for wishing me on my talk page. I appreciate and reciprocate your kind greetings although i wonder if you mistook me for someone else. I don't recall interacting with you before. ] (]) 04:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
:I basically have turned into a Wikignome and do lots of lurking, rather than the frantic editing binges I used to do. I do note work by others but have concentrated on some very obscure themes, such as North American aviation films. ] (]) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


== Premature RfC's ==
:::You queried about canvassing and proposed something that might constitute such; Twobells prima facie accepted your proposal and thereby affirmed that it was not canvassing. I assure you, it would be canvassing and, as their history shows, Twobells hasn't got much clue. Similarly, Kenfyre is confused, as everyone has been telling them in their poorly-phrased RfC.<p>That you seemingly dislike me is fine. However, agreeing with other people because they also oppose me would not make you right. It is weird odd that you are "impressed" seemingly only by people who disagree with me, regardless of the subject, but please remember that ]. I've seen many situations here where one person has "got their way" despite opposition from many others, simply because the sole person understands policy.<p>Anyway, I'll leave you to it: you'll likely find out the hard way in due course, if you don't get blocked for one of your many copyright violations beforehand. I'll leave, however, with the notice below because this looks like it might become a problem and in any event you need to be aware for your own sake. I apologise if you have seen it before - I think there is a way to check that without trawling through your talk page history but I'm afraid I can't remember how to do it. - ] (]) 07:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
::::I am not sure why you would imagine that i dislike you. I am actually quite fond of you. Incidentally, i am deleting the template you posted since its getting in the way of our interaction; if you notice a similar template has been posted earlier by an Admin on my talk page. ] (]) 08:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


Dear Soham, Please note the procedure {{tq|Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page.}} (at ]). It is counterproductive to file RfC's before discussing the issues ahead of time. RfC's are a way to get outside input if an agreement cannot be reached among the involved editors. Also, good RfC's must be focused, deal with a single yes/no question. The ones you are filing are too unwieldy, raising a whole range of issues at one go. This is not the way. -- ] (]) 13:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sitush, it is usually good manners to inform someone if they are the subject of a discussion, in order that they might defend their position Sitush, that you failed to, however, does not surprise me. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
:It is standard to link the user name when an editor is mentioned so they are notified per ]. That is why Sitush linked your user name in the very fist post in this section. ] (]) 10:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
::Sorry, who are you?]<sup>]</sup> 14:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


this is true but when there is a fundamental disagreement with respect to misrepresentation of source material then extensive discussion is not possible. ] (]) 16:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
== ] and ] ==


== Blocked for unending ] behavior ==
today at ]; be a wise man and self-revert. ] -] 11:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
:Done. Thanks for the warning. ] (]) 11:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
::You're welcome. ] -] 12:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


I've blocked you indefinitely for disrupting the encyclopedia pretty much ever since you started editing here. The straw that broke the camel's back was the AE thread you recently opened, but there have been months and months of it, and I have no doubt it would continued if I had tried to craft a topic ban instead. This isn't an ] block; any admin can unblock if they come to believe that you will stop this behavior. But I've seen enough to know it will never be me who unblocks; I've seen enough to know that you will not change. Template with unblock instructions will be added below in a minute. --] (]) 18:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
== Indent ==


== December 2016 ==
You can indent your comments by starting a new line with the : sign. Or ad <nowiki><br></nowiki> at the end of your previous sentence. Other editors will probably take you more serious when you're able to do such a simple thing.<br>
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing for persistent ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. &nbsp;] (]) 18:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock -->
Best regards, ] -] 03:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
:The edit you are claiming i did not indent was just a continuation of my own previous edit. I will be indenting my posts in response to another editor, but i shall be continuing to write after my signature if i am just continuing with my edit. Incidentally, i recently wrote a note on the talk page of an ArbCom volunteer (in the recent appeal) who also wrote in the same manner. In other words, he just continued writing after my signature without indenting his response--indicating that this protest that i am not indenting my edit is making a mountain out of a molehill. ] (]) 04:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


== need support == == Note to Floquenbeam ==


Hi {{u|Floquenbeam}}, i just wanted to note that i consider you an involved Admin as well and as such I believe it is inappropriate for you to place an indefinite block on my account in the middle of an AE discussion. Please advise me on my options on how to file an appeal of the block you have placed on me (in the course of which I shall be presenting evidence of why I consider you an involved Admin). Thank you. ] (]) 18:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
:I'm not involved, and the instructions for requesting an unblock are right up there in the template. --] (]) 18:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
::{{u|Floquenbeam}}, is it all right with you if i present evidence of you being involved right here? ] (]) 18:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
:::Soham, before you go down the "involved" route please do ensure that you have actually read and fully understood the thing. A lot of your difficulties have been because your understanding of various policies etc has been way behind your willingness to invoke them. - ] (]) 18:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


:::I don't care what you do here; as long as you're restricted to your own talk page, your ability to disrupt the encyclopedia is significantly reduced. But please don't ping me just to make sure I see why you think I'm involved, as I will not be reading what you post. If you have a '''question''', then ping me. Gratuitous pings are about the only disruption you can still cause, so I'll be removing talk page access if it looks like any pings are intended to pester, rather than question. --] (]) 18:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
please do delete the speedy contest deletion message from the article and help to make the article in an elegant manner https://en.wikipedia.org/Sridhar_babu_addanki swaroop 07:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Pinging Risker ==
== ] ==


pinging senior Admin {{u|Risker}}, with whom i have never interacted, to look into my situation and advise me if she thinks I am an asset to WP. ] (]) 18:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to advise that the "Talk Page Etiquette" arbitration case, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined by the committee on account of the fact that it appears to have been withdrawn. Further information is available at the above link. On behalf of the committee, ] <sup>(])</sup> 14:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
:I have no idea whether or not you are an asset in the content area; I'm not going to review your edits. I rarely consider anything resembling unblock requests, which I'm assuming this is intended to be, in some way. Reading your talk page, particularly all of the stuff below, I'm not motivated to review your situation. Even though we rarely communicate, I generally find myself in agreement with Floquenbeam's actions, and nothing you have written has inclined me to think that this particular block would be grounds for me to make an exception to my usual practices. ] (]) 23:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


::Thank you for your response. This was not an unblock request. As i have said below i am quite happy to remain blocked while the AE case continues. ] (]) 23:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
== July 2015 ==
] Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you made a comment on the page ] that didn't seem very ], so it has been removed. Misplaced Pages needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ].


== Note to anyone reading this page ==
Do not engage in personal attacks against other authors when you do not agree with them. Your declaration that another editor was a Vedantin and therefore unfit to edit a page is inappropriate ''at best''. <!-- Template:uw-npa1 --> ] ] 08:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
: {{u|Ogress}}, I notice your deletion of my edit has already been undone by another editor on the ground that it was not a personal attack which is the truth. In future, if you remove my comments from a talk page without a legitimate reason i shall take you to ANI. ] (]) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
::I removed your edit as it was a personal attack, and I will not be bullied by threats of ANI, which you whip out every time you dislike something. ] ] 17:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
::: {{u|Ogress}}, The fact that it was not a personal attack was agreed upon by {{u|Mohanbhan}} who removed your inappropriate revert of my edit. If you continue to indulge in disruptive behavior, what choice do i have other than to take you to ANI? Your claim that i bully and threaten to take people to ANI whenever i disagree with them is not borne by facts. I will say though that my assessment of you is that you have very little to contribute to the encyclopedia in terms of knowledge at least on pages concerning Indian philosophy. You bring very little to the table. ] (]) 18:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
:::: Wow, Soham321, you sure know how not to engage in personal attacks. ] ] 18:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::You are welcome to consider this a personal attack. It is not. It is my personal view which i am sharing on my personal talk page since you chose to come here uninvited. ] (]) 18:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


(I began writing a response to Sitush's recent comment on my talk page; but after seeing Floquenbeam's subsequent comment, while i was composing my response, i decided it would be best to place this in a separate section):
== Warning ==


Sitush, why am i not surprised to see you come to the defense of Floquenbeam after he indeffed me for a discussion which involved you? Isn't Floquenbeam the same person who had swiftly lifted the indef block on you placed by the now retired Mike V after you had threatened to gun down an editor with whom you had been involved in a dispute with (your comment had been revdeled but it should be accessible to Admins who wish to investigate why you were indeffed by Mike V). Add to this Floquenbeam's interaction history with you (the two of you exchanging frequent pleasantries on each other's talk pages).
Treat this as a final warning. You've already been alerted about the Arbcom discretionary sanctions and your behavior across multiple articles and talk pages has been disruptive. If you continue to do so you are likely to be blocked and/or topic banned. &mdash;]''']''' 18:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
:Regarding Arbcom i had interacted with an ArbCom volunteer on his talk page who had agreed that my complaint to ArbCom was an 'error of inexperience' and he would not be holding it against me in future. This is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&diff=669684274&oldid=669683169 By no means of the imagination have i made any personal attack on Ogress as far as i am concerned. If you disagree, and utilize your Admin powers, as you have every right to do, i shall appeal your sanctions against me in the appropriate forum. ] (]) 18:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
::I am specifically not including any filing of arbcom cases as that is entirely within your right, as also your prerogative to appeal any sanctions. You behavior otherwise is what is under question and can be sanctioned. You've been warned and counseled by multiple editors in the past, yet you don't seem to be reducing the disruptive behavior. I'm asking you to do that. &mdash;]''']''' 18:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
::: the fact that your claim that my behavior across multiple articles and talk pages has been disruptive is patently false is borne out if you see the history on the ] page. All my edits have been accepted on this page even though this is a very disputed article and even the major political parties in India like the Congress and BJP have commented on the editing of this page in the media. As far as the ] article is concerned there is a genuine difference of opinion as can be seen in the talk page of the article. The editors who have warned me on different pages are those who hold views on the subject which are different from mine. There is a genuine intellectual debate taking place which you are trying to stifle through Admin intervention. In my opinion this is detrimental to the Encyclopedia. Content creators have to be protected by Admins rather than threatened. ] (]) 18:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


Finally, as evidence of Floquenbeam's inherent bias against me (stretching much before this case), consider :{{Quote| If we're invoking WP:NORULES, does that mean I can just block this guy as a timesink if I think it would improve the encyclopedia? That was mostly a rhetorical question - I suspect it would suddenly become very important to Sohan that the rules be respected - but here's a serious one: when ArbCom rejects this, as I am sure they will (AE was closed 5-0 against revising topic ban) could Arbcom please shut this guy down, and shut him down ''hard'', so he doesn't waste quite as much of everyone's time after this? For example, forbidding future appeals in any forum for the duration of the topic ban.}}
== Talk page etiquette again ==


ArbCom did not "shut me down, and shut me down hard" as Floquenbeam wanted, although they declined my appeal to overturn my topic ban (which expired more than one year ago). No further sanctions were imposed on me. Senior editor Rich Farmbrough (not pinging him because Floquenbeam has threatened he would remove my talk page access if i ping others for anything other than questions) . In a subsequent comment, Rich Farmbrough had responded to Floquenbeam's comment (given by me earlier) : {{Quote| @ Floq. There is no compulsion to comment on Soham's requests - or even to read anything Soham posts. }}
Soham, Edits and comments like
* {{tq|If you had any sense you would have stayed away from this discussion.}} ,
* {{tq|Sarah Welch comes across as a Vedantin based on my interaction with her on the talk page of Adi Shankara.}} , and
* {{tq|I will say though that my assessment of you is that you have very little to contribute to the encyclopedia in terms of knowledge at least on pages concerning Indian philosophy. You bring very little to the table. }}
are not ok. As you have been advised before, please be more ] and ] when interacting with other editors on article and user talkpages (including your own); and focus on content and sources instead of speculating about other editors' ideology and motivation. I see that you have already been warned about such disruptive conduct, and been made aware of the potential consequences above and so won't repeat that. I hope you'll make greater efforts to be collaborative in the future.<br>
PS: Feel free to get a second opinion about the above listed comments from any experienced editor/admin that you trust, and in fact I highly encourage you to get a ] to advice you about editing and talk-page conduct. ] (]) 22:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
:All right, i will try to remain more cool during philosophy discussions. I tend to become passionate in philosophy related discussions. ] (]) 22:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC) This applies to the first two diffs that you gave. I see nothing wrong in the third diff you gave because i was responding to what i considered repeated unwarranted allegations against me (and that too on my talk page) by Ogress that i was making personal attacks on her when i was doing no such thing. ] (]) 22:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
::I did ''not'' say you were engaging in personal attacks against '''me''' until you said {{tq|I will say though that my assessment of you is that you have very little to contribute to the encyclopedia in terms of knowledge at least on pages concerning Indian philosophy. You bring very little to the table. }} I very clearly stated you were making a personal attack against ''Ms Sarah Welch''. ] ] 22:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
:::My response that you are quoting was after you wrote this:''I removed your edit as it was a personal attack, and I will not be bullied by threats of ANI, which you whip out every time you dislike something.'' You had reverted an edit of mine on the ] talk page on the ground that it constituted a personal attack which i maintain was not a personal attack. Your revert was reverted by another editor ({{u|Mohanbhan}}) who wrote the following words in the edit summary which were addressed to you: ''It is not a personal attack, he is stating a grievance, do not censor wiki by using strong words'' ] (]) 22:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
::::What "strong words" was I using, exactly, when I said it was a personal attack? ] ] 22:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::I will let Mohanbhan speak for himself (if he wishes to) as to why he used the words 'strong words' but this is your exact edit summary (the capitalization of the words was done by you in the edit summary) when you reverted my edit: ''Deleting personal attack. DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS.''
{{od}}So obviously that means you were justified in belittling me, as you say above, {{tq| I see nothing wrong in the third diff you gave}}. I'll keep that in mind. ] ] 23:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
:I apologize for belittling you. Even though you were indulging in behavior which i consider to be provocative i agree that i should have refrained from belittling you. Let us be cordial towards each other and work towards improving the Encyclopedia. ] (]) 23:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
==Caravaka talkpage request==
Would you mind moving about DC as a source to the ]? I'd be happy to respond there and that way even editors reading the talkpage 2-3 years down the line will be able to make sense of the discussion. ] (]) 23:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
:I don't think that's a good idea because I do not want editors reading the page 2-3 years from now to imagine that the sources you are giving are the modern, standard sources and that Chattopadhyaya should not be considered a modern, standard source. You are welcome to give your response in the other section if you wish. ] (]) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


I would like it to be determined whether Floquenbeam is ] with respect to me through his words and behavior which prohibited him from imposing the indefinite block he has placed on me after i expressed my views in an AE discussion. ] (]) 19:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
::Not sure I understand your objection to the request but <shrug>... not a big deal either ways. Cheers. ] (]) 00:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


:I didn't come to Floq's defence - read what I said, not some subtext that exists only in your own head. I also haven't taken part in the discussion regarding you at WP:AE. - ] (]) 19:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
== July 2015 ==
] Your addition to ] has been removed, as it appears to have added ] material to Misplaced Pages without ] from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read ] for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''content'', such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators '''will be ]'''. ''


*] refers to situations where we're at odds in a content disupte. I have no content dispute with you - I don't edit, or know anything about, articles in the India/Pakistan sphere - All I've done is notice your long term disruption a while ago, and occasionally keep an eye on you because of it. It is not a violation of ] to notice your disruption, comment on it, and when it continues, eventually block you for it.
You have to stop inserting lengthy quotations into articles. We know that you have a history of breaching copyright but simply quoting huge chunks of text is not a way round that problem. Please review ] and, if in doubt, ask.''<!-- Template:uw-copyright --> ] (]) 23:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
:{{u|Sitush}}, feel free to take me to the appropriate forum if you feel i have violated copyright. I have not violated copyright; i gave my own paraphrase/summary of the dispute and then i gave a direct quote with the link to the Indian Express article. ] (]) 23:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


:You can ping people once if there's a legit reason to think they wouldn't mind; I have no concern if you ping Rich once, for instance. It's more the likelihood of you pinging people you're in conflict with, or me, repeatedly, that I'm warning against. --] (]) 19:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
::I think you will find that there are several people keeping an eye on you anyway, so the chances are that someone will turn up here to support my opinion. Believe me, you do not want to find yourself at ], which is indeed the "correct forum". You will either end up spending the next few weeks doing nothing but checking your own past contributions or you will become so dis-spirited that you will just give up completely. That's the pattern, time and again, and I'd rather try to avoid putting you in that position. You '''cannot'' just add hundreds of copied characters to an article and assume that by formatting them as quotations they somehow avoid the copyright concerns. Alas, that is what you have been doing across numerous articles. Quotes certainly have a function here but your judgement is way off-course. - ] (]) 23:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
:::Thanks for sharing your opinion with me. ] (]) 23:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


Floquenbeam, i disagree with your interpretation of ]. Let's consider what the text pertaining to WP:INVOLVED says: {{Quote|In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
== Thanks ==


One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.
</noinclude><div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]


In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.}}
Kautilya3 has given you a ]! Goldfish promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day much better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a goldfish, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks for all your efforts in adding to the ] page, especially the new Nehru and Science section. <br />


You are definitely involved because when you made your comment in my ArbCom appeal--expressing a clear bias against me, invoking ArbCom to "shut him down, and shut him down hard" (your request was ignored by them)-- you had made it in your capacity as a regular WP editor; you were not expressing your views in an administrative role since you didn't get to decide what the outcome of the case would be. Nor were you involved at any stage of my case in an Administrative capacity. ] (]) 20:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Give someone a goldfish by adding {{tls|Goldfish}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
{{clear}}
</div>
:The goldfish did make my day better.Thank you, {{u|Kautilya3}}. ] (]) 20:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


:Nope, I made that comment as an admin aware of your previous disruption. --] (]) 20:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
== D. E. Smith ==
::Let us let uninvolved Admins decide whether your comments in my ArbCom appeal were made in your capacity as a regular editor or made in your capacity of being a WP Admin. I think you will agree that we had never interacted before prior to you making those comments. The fact that the ArbCom appeal process (this was an ] case) prohibited you from acting in your Admin capacity, the fact that you had never interacted me before making those comments (not as an Admin, not as a regular editor) makes me believe that your comments in my ArbCom appeal should be construed as being the comments of a regular WP editor. Notice these words from the first paragraph of WP:INVOLVED: {{Quote|Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.}}] (]) 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


:::You will need to formulate it as a proper unblock request. Probably a good idea to read ] first. - ] (]) 20:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
There is no article telling us . What we have is a poor stub full of mini-quotes in Yogesh Khandke style. That tells us how important this now-outdated book was in its time. What we need to know in the context of ] is what qualifies Smith to form such an opinion. That would be, for example, that he is/was a political scientist or a historian. Given that it is 50 years since, it might also be necessary to say that this is an old opinion, ie: something like "In 1965, the political scientist Donald Eugene Smith said that ''yada yada''".


Soham, I am trying and trying to show you how to write well and you simply keep fighting it at every opportunity. I'm not known for a saint-like patience and sooner or later I will snap unless you start to come to your senses. I'd get criticised for that; you would probably end up in a worse position. - ] (]) 17:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Sitush, There is an ongoing AE case pertaining to me. I am sure the AE Admins are scrutinizing this page. Asking for an unblock right now would complicate the AE case even more. I am quite happy to remain blocked while the AE case plays itself out. ] (]) 20:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
:I've replied to this, and also pinged you, on the talk page of ]. Please discuss content disputes in the talk page of the main article under dispute.


== Topic and page bans ==
:: Hi buddy, try to listen more and talk less. Sitush has more than 10 featured/good articles. We would be lucky to produce one. So, let us try to learn from him rather than to argue. Deal? - ] (]) 19:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
:::A content dispute has nothing to do with an editor's writing skills. ] (]) 20:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
:::: It is not a "content" dispute. It is a style dispute, where experience definitely counts. - ] (]) 20:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC){{od}}Whether Donald Eugene Smith's book ] should be considered 'out of date' is definitely a content dispute and not a style dispute. ] (]) 20:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
::::: No, it is still style. A GA reviewer would also raise an issue about out-of-date sources. The correct response is that the book was current for the material we are using from it. (If I cited Smith to argue how Hindus are supposed to be fundamentally secular, it wouldn't wash.) - ] (]) 20:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC){{od}}Let us agree to disagree. ] (]) 20:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


Per the discussion at ], please note that you are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages dealing with the realm of ] (India, Pakistan and Afghanistan). You are also indefinitely banned from filing cases at Arbitration Enforcement. Your topic ban has been noted at ]. ] 01:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
"Agree to disagree" will not wash in the long run. You cannot keep saying that every time you find yourself on the wrong end of a discussion: you either learn or you eventually find yourself considered to be ]. - ] (]) 20:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC){{od}}I am surely entitled to disagree with you and Kautilya on whether Donald Eugene Smith's book ] should be considered 'out of date' or not. ] (]) 20:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


{{u|Black Kite}}, thanks for the AE notification. Do i have to now make a separate appeal for lifting the indefinite block? ] (]) 01:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
== Redlinks ==
:Yes, you do. The way to do it is to post a block appeal per the instructions in Floquenbeam's block template (the "December 2016" section above). ] &#124; ] 01:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC).


Thanks Bishonen. I think i'll take a break from WP. I'll file my block appeal whenever i feel like continuing editing here. ] (]) 01:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
is not a reason to remove a link. Please see ]. - ] (]) 19:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
:All right. I thought the link to a non-existing wikipedia page had been inserted accidentally. But i don't really care if you prefer to maintain the link. ] (]) 19:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
:: Sitush might be giving a hint that the opinion of a random news reporter is not encyclopaedic. -- ] (]) 20:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
:::If that is what Sitush is thinking then Sitush is wrong. Suresh Nambath is not just any random news reporter; he is the ''Co-ordinating Editor'' at ''The Hindu'' newspaper as per his official twitter account. In other words, we are talking about a senior journalist and not just any random journalist. ] (]) 20:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
:::: Well, everybody gets called an "editor" of some sort or other these days. But it doesn't matter what kind of an editor. Only scholars' opinions count on Misplaced Pages. - ] (]) 20:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC){{od}}How do you explain the fact that the journalist Arun Shourie's book ] in which he slams many noted Indian historians has its own wikipedia page? Clearly journalist's opinions do count on wikipedia. ] (]) 20:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


== Disillusioned by your block ==
::::: A journalist's opinion is not authoritative. That a book such as Shourie's may be notable ''as a book'' does not make his opinion any more viable. I left Nambath as a redlink while I tried to find out some information for a potential article; it turns out that he is nothing special at all, so we can bin both the link and indeed the entire statement. - ] (]) 20:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC){{od}}This comment should have been posted at the talk page of the article--pinging me and Kautilya and others if Sitush wanted to--and not here.] (]) 20:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi, while I came across your edits for the first time only a couple of days ago, your block has honestly left me quite disillusioned about this whole place. Even if the avenue which was chosen (AE) to raise your concerns was procedurally not the appropriate one, I am at a loss to understand that it lead to your being blocked. While it may land me in trouble going forward, I must state that the cavalier attitude displayed by some of our esteemed admins in tackling the situation was quite disappointing. You repeatedly provided your reasoning to justify filing the AE request (a. Simply no hope at all of making any headway when the other editor brazenly misrepresents sources, b. Your understanding based on prior experience (which you showed evidence for) that once the Rfc has been filed, disputed content shall not be edited). I am amazed that no admin (apart from RegentsPark) seemingly even bothered to understand/respond to this. All this despite two other editors (myself and Kashmiri) stating that they have also had issues working with the other editor. A professional approach on part of the adjudication committee would have been to suggest taking the case to a more appropriate forum (such as ANI I believe), rather than just blocking you.
Can you please sort out your indenting, Soham. As for your remark about placement, I was responding to your query regarding Shourie, which is appropriate neither at the Nehru article nor those for either Smith's book or Shourie's. - ] (]) 20:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
:That is fine, but you also suggested that the Suresh Nambath reference in the main article of ] should be binned. Any discussion about binning of a source from the main article should be taking place at the talk page of that main article, and not on my personal talk page. ] (]) 20:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
::It is. I am not superhuman and cannot be in two places at once. - ] (]) 21:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
:: (ec) That kind of thing is rarely discussed in talk pages. It is basic ]. An edit summary is all you get. Sitush was just trying to give you a bit of private tutoring on your talk page because he likes you :-)
:: As for the Arun Shourie stuff, see ]. - ] (]) 21:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


In any case, there is much more to life than editing Misplaced Pages, and I hope you are enjoying your time away from this ! Whether you decide to come back or not, I wish you the best. ] (]) 06:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
:: A relatively minor point, Soham, but I think one worth mentioning. You say above that pinging would do the job. Alas, for reasons that I do not understand, it is well-known that {{tl|ping}} etc do not in fact always result in a notification for the pinged person. Also, just in case you are unaware, if you mis-ping for some reason (eg: you mis-type the contributor's name) it is no good just editing that message. You would need instead to compose an entirely separate message that incorporates a valid ping and refers the pinged contributor to your failed attempt. Or just drop them a note on their talk page, as I did for one of the arbitrators earlier today. - ] (]) 01:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
:::You can always leave a note on the talk page of the involved editor that a discussion is taking place in the talk page of the article which may be of interest to him/her, but content disputes for any article (particularly important content disputes like whether a source should be binned or not) should take place at the article's talk page so that future editors have a record of prior discussion on the article. I think its critical for future editors of an article to know about past discussions about the article's content. ] (]) 01:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


: I said that there was no case. Soham could have withdrawn the case, or at least kept quiet so it might have been closed. Let this be a lesson, for all the watchers. Happy New Year! -- ] (]) 17:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
== Eckankar excessive and inappropriate editing ==
::Kautilya3, i am going to respectfully ask you and everyone else on the "opposing side" of the AE case to refrain from commenting on this AE case on my talk page. We have different opinions about the case and you are entitled to your opinion. But please let there be no grave dancing on my talk page. ] (]) 17:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


Js82, I am currently trying to educate myself more about how Misplaced Pages (WP) works. Despite trying to familiarize myself with WP:RULES, i clearly remained ignorant about how WP operates. In the finest WP criticism forum i have come across (it is not WO), someone reviewing my block has written: {{Quote|Your mistake was in assuming Misplaced Pages has the capacity to deal with mutli-facetted disputes, which encompass multiple people, involve personality and content issues, over long time periods.
"Philosophy, religion, or politics
For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets." from ]


Misplaced Pages cannot do that. It has the systems, sort of, but not the people.
Eckankar is a religion. Adding in disputed and controversal criticisms is inappropriate outside of the Criticism Section. That section is appropriately called "Criticism". Scholars state their names and credentials. And when their observations are contradictory to the religion on whith they are commenting, they are indeed criticisms.


On Misplaced Pages, the system works by examining personal conduct issues only, for as brief a time period as necessary, with a view to picking a winner, banning a loser, and filing all other matters, namely the conduct of other people and all matters of disputed content, in the bin marked 'let's see if anyone gives a shit about that stuff later, after we have finisished our tea, biscuits, and self congratulations'.
Please respect the beliefs of others and also the Misplaced Pages rules.
--] (]) 05:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
:I am posting my response to the talk page of the article. Please continue the discussion there. ] (]) 05:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


Floquenbeam, with his <redacted>, <redacted> and assorted other <redacted>, is quite suited to the latter, but not so much the former. Hence the outcome here, at his hands.
== Some stroopwafels for you! ==


I cannot quite believe you expended this much time and energy on these <redacted>. But sometimes it is necessary for people to do that, before their eyes are truly opened. Use your experience to help others avoid the entire <redacted>.}} ] (]) 17:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Please try to relax a little bit. I'm not out there to harm you, or to attack anything you try to communicate. As far as I can see, you know a lot, you read decent sources, and I'm interested in hearing what you've got to add. Best regards, ] -] 06:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
|}
:I have nothing personal against you. In fact i like you as a person. It is just that i do not think your editing on the ] was leading to the article becoming better; in fact the article was becoming worse in my opinion. I wish you would have stopped editing this article when i asked Ogress to do the editing since both of us seem to have trust in her. At any rate, i have now pinged on the talk page of the article every single person who has ever edited this article for a second opinion on our content dispute. I am sorry if i have hurt your feelings, but in my opinion our primary focus should be on making wikipedia articles better. ] (]) 17:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


::"From now on"? No, that is actually the last straw. Your talkpage access has been revoked. ] &#124; ] 20:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC).
== Please stop personal attacks and edit warring ==


== Missing your work -- come back after you cool off ==
Soham321: You are engaged in personal attacks and edit warring again, this time at the ] article such as in your edit summary and . I see various veteran members of wikipedia community, such as {{u|SpacemanSpiff}}, {{u|Joshua Jonathan}} and {{u|Abecedare}} have advised you repeatedly above on such disruptive behavior. Please stop. ] (]) 13:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


Soham321, I have reviewed the AE case and I frankly agree with the consensus decision. However, that consensus didn't include being blocked forever from the entire site. So, once you have cooled off and have considered areas where you can improve in terms of following policy, I hope that you will ask to be unblocked. You can ask on the basis that you have contributed a lot of valuable content outside of the topic area you have been banned from, and I can attest to that. I would also recommend re-committing yourself to a more cooperative editing experience and vow not to repeat the recent mistakes. If you are concerned you cannot work on ], I would be happy to help steward your changes into article space, given the topic ban doesn't extend to your user space where you can develop a copy of the article. The bottom line is that your work is missed and the Misplaced Pages needs the positive side of your work. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 19:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
:I am giving my response on the talk page of ]. ] (]) 13:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
: I am afraid a topic ban extends to all pages, including the user space, talk pages etc. What you are suggesting here amounts to proxy-editing, which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Sadly, Soham will need to stay away from all IPA topics until he can demonstrate his good conduct somehow. -- ] (]) 22:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
:: ] says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) ''unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits''." (italics are mine) I would indeed show (via edit summary or talk page explanation) that changes are verifiable/productive, and as I'm the one who asked because of my own independent reasons, I think this is all covered. Note that Soham321 is not implicated in his work on Muhammad Ali-related articles, ''as far as I know''. Also, to say ] is a typical article among India-related articles seems a bit of a stretch. ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 00:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].


The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
::@Soham321: Once again, please stop personal attacks such as on Carvaka talk page. Respond constructively to suggestions to reach consensus and collaborate. ] (]) 14:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC){{od}}
There is no personal attack. When you declare Chattopadhyaya to be a fringe source, and do so repeatedly again and again, despite the endorsement of his scholarship by ], ] and others--and despite {{u|Mohanbhan}} patiently explaining to you that your view about Chattopadhyaya is incorrect-- then i have the full right to ask you to read ] carefully. I also gave in the talk page of ], {{u|Ogress}}'s endorsement of Chattopadhyaya's scholarship but even that had no effect on you and you continue in your quest of damning Chattopadhyaya as a fringe scholar. ] (]) 14:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 07:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
==Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction==
==] nomination of ]==
{{Ivmbox
]
|2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
|imagesize=50px
A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the page appears to be an unambiguous ] infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Muhammad_Ali_vs._Leon_Spinks_(1st_meeting). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of ''information'', but not as a source of ''sentences''. This part is crucial: ''say it in your own words''. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators '''will be ]'''.
|1=The following sanction now applies to you:

{{Talkquote|1=a six-month topic ban from all pages related to ], broadly construed.}}

You have been sanctioned for disruptive editing on Indian pages. See extended rationale below.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an ] under the authority of the ]'s decision at ] and, if applicable, the procedure described at ]. This sanction has been recorded in the ]. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the ] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be ] 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 ]. I recommend that you use the ] 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.&nbsp;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.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> ] &#124; ] 15:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
}}

Extended rationale: I have dipped into your history somewhat, and seen a running theme, going back two years, of advice and warnings about disruptive editing on your talkpage, which as far as I noticed you have generally taken as evidence that the user speaking to you, not you, had the problem — usually you either remove the posts without comment, or blow them off. After an ANI discussion in August 2013 you got a one-year topic ban, which ] kept down to a narrow ban on ] "as a gesture of good faith". I've seen you recently acknowledge than the ban was well-deserved (can't find the diff, sorry, but I've seen it), even though at the time you reacted to it with bitter sarcasm about all the "buddies" and "meatpuppets" who had ganged up on you . That was a long time ago; the reason I bring it up is that your acknowledgement gave me hope that you had become more generally prepared to listen to other people since then. But a review of this talkpage and your input on article talkpages unfortunately tells a different story.

I've looked more closely at warnings and noticeboard discussions after you were formally alerted to the ARBIPA sanctions a month ago, (even though you were indeed ).

You've been involved in several ANI threads in that month, including and , where you opened a thread accusing ] of disruptive editing, and were told by ] that "No admin action should be needed, unless Soham's disruption and needless escalation continues".

You have also received a number of warnings and a lot of good advice on your page, and have rebuffed most of it, from immediately after the alert, and — rather strikingly — a recommendation on 11 July to "", from an obviously friendly user trying to help. (They got blown off with some wikilawyering, in this case about "style" versus "content".) And right down to the moment, with ]'s warnings above. You are currently edit warring at ] and being aggressive with it, such as ] (please read what ] itself prominently says about referencing it: "Be very cautious when referencing this page, as it can be very insulting to other editors"). is the last straw for me.

To summarise, I see ] editing going back two years, and no improvement since the discretionary sanctions alert a month ago. It seems to me that you have repaid KDB's good-faith gesture in 2013 by continuing to waste constructive contributors' time, patience, energy, and good faith. I'm almost surprised none of the admins who have warned you, including recently, against ] and ] have taken the final step of topic-banning you; no doubt they wanted to give you as many chances as possible. Or they may have felt they were too involved with the subject. However, discretionary sanctions exist to protect editors' time and enthusiasm, because those are our most precious resources, and users who waste them must be reined in. I don't mean to say you make no constructive, helpful edits; certainly you do (compare the stroopwafels from Joshua Jonathan above); but it's not enough to balance the problems you cause. I'm therefore topic banning you from all pages related to ], broadly construed, for six months. ] &#124; ] 15:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC).

{{u|Bishonen}} i wish to appeal against the topic ban since i believe it to be an unjustified exercise of Admin power, particularly since the two of us have clashed at a personal level in the past (when you falsely insinuated that i was doing editing using an IP address and subsequently retracted your accusation and even deleted your edit summaries).
You are equating content disputes with personal attacks in an unjustified manner. And you are stifling genuine intellectual debates through Admin intervention which is detrimental to the development of content on the Encyclopedia. The fact that there is no battleground mentality can be easily seen from the fact that i now have cordial relations with {{u|Sitush}} and {{u|Ogress}} despite earlier having some personal friction with them. I am prepared to take this to ArbCom, but before i do so please tell me if there is any intervening forum where i can appeal your decision. ] (]) 16:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
:From what i can tell, i have to appeal to ArbCom directly against your decision. I am doing so. ] (]) 16:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
::It's not the case that that's your only option. If you look at the template I posted above, it says you can appeal my sanction using the process described ], where it says you can request review at the ] ("AE") or at the ] ("AN"); or at ]. Only ARCA, of the three, is ArbCom. ] &#124; ] 16:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC).{{od}}
Thank you.] (]) 16:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

::This is very very unfair in my opinion, since the immediate reason cited for this sanction has been Soham's disruptive editing on Carvaka page while it was Sarah Welch's editing which was disruptive, and her behaviour which was not up to wiki standards. The Admin also seems to have not taken into consideration Sarah Welch's haranguing about Chattopadhyaya in spite of us discussing very civilly with her about this issue, and explaining Chattopadhyaya's continued relevance as a philosopher as against a historian. Soham was made to lose patience by Sarah Welch's disruptive reverts and continued haranguing about Chattopadhyaya. I don't think it was a personal attack to tell her that she didn't understand what we were communicating. I am deeply dismayed by this punitive action on Soham. I hope he finds justice at the right forum. -] (]) 16:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

== Arbitration ==

As it says at the top of the page, "If you must reply to another person's statement, do so in your own section" - I suggest you move posts to the appropriate place. ] (]) 19:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
:Done. Thanks. ] (]) 19:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

== Your Appeal ==

I haven't been involved in this dispute at all until now.

Are you really trying to get your topic-ban lifted, or are you really trying to walk your way into a site-ban?

On the one hand, you may have a point that you are allowed to go over the 1000-word limit in replying to other posts. On the other hand, what do you hope to accomplish by replying at great and tedious length to the other posts? Do you really think that replying at length to all of the other posts will persuade the arbitrators that the topic-ban should be lifted? Since the topic-ban is for pugnacious editing, has it occurred to you that replying to everything at length is pugnacious? Even if you have the right to exceed the word limit in replies, it isn't useful to exceed the limit in replied. Did you really think that you could get the topic-ban lifted simply by piling on the words?

At this point, my advice is to withdraw your ban appeal entirely. Just withdraw it and accept the topic-ban. That is the approach that minimizes the likelihood of getting a long block or a site-ban added on. ] (]) 15:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
:Hi Soham, sad to know that you are topic banned, but you should follow advice of Robert, once someone gets topic banned then it is very rare to get unbanned. As far as my experience is concerned, your edits on ] and ] were good. But I don't know about other pages or your comments on talk pages. It will be to better for your "peace of mind" and future as a Misplaced Pages editor to leave this matter. Best luck. --]]&nbsp;• 16:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks for your kind words, {{u|Human3015}}. ] (]) 16:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

*Sorry to hear you lost your appeal, strangely, I cannot seem to find the appeal conclusions as to why they refused your appeal, would you kindly direct me to the decision so I might further understand how arb works please? Best wishes as always. ]<sup>]</sup> 09:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Twobells}} It's at the bottom of . The arbitrators declining means they deny the appeal. ] ] 11:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Thomas.W}}Many thanks for your help, regards.]<sup>]</sup> 14:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

==!!==
Hi, I see that you have ran into you a wall now, I see that your edits are with some force!, you have to give some time on some point of views which may not be same as yours (could be totally wrong) give it some time .. next time instead of saying right or wrong as you are doing now just give descrpition what is wrong with it ? , a mere wrong and reverts will end up here , I will be open to any of your q's if you need any help ] (]) 17:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
:{{u|Shrikanthv}} Thanks for your kind offer to help me with advise. I will reach out to you if i feel i need a second opinion about something. ] (]) 18:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

==Violation of topic ban==
Soham, please read the banning policy, because you have already violated your topic ban with . ] is the section you need to read: {{tq|Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article ], but also '''everything else that has to do with weather'''."}} Your topic ban prohibits you from discussing or mentioning "the Hindu custom of ]". It's a subject that has to do with India. I understand you didn't know, but please take note for the future. ] &#124; ] 18:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC).

:{{u|Bishonen}}, am i permitted to write on India related topics on my own user page (including the sandbox), and also on the user talk page of other editors while the India related ban is in place? ] (]) 12:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
::No. The topic ban applies to ''all'' Misplaced Pages pages, "..including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes)". It's all in ]. Please try to find other areas to edit while you're topic banned. ] &#124; ] 12:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC).{{od}}
{{u|Bishonen}}, I wish to make an edit on the ] page based on a story written by Voltaire involving two people--one of them named as 'Brahmin'. The story is about Voltaire's contempt for asceticism. There is no mention of Hinduism in the story. Would i be in violation of the Topic Ban if i do so? ] (]) 00:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
:In general, if people have to ask "would this edit violate an TBAN?", the best choice would be to ''not'' make the edit—the purpose of a TBAN is to reduce turmoil. In particular, given that the TBAN is very recent and there is a major discussion at ], raising more issues at the moment would not be desirable. I suggest asking in a month. ] (]) 02:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, I agree with John. But now that you've asked, please put the text you wish to add here, and I'll tell you if it's acceptable. ] &#124; ] 07:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC).

===Voltaire on Asceticism===
In his story ''Babadec'', Voltaire dismissed asceticism with contempt and his characteristic humor. In the story, Omni asks the Brahmin if there is any possibility of his ever reaching the nineteenth heaven. {{Quote|"It depends," replied the Brahmin, "on what kind of life you lead."

"I try to be a good citizen, a good husband, a good father, a good friend. I sometimes lend money without interest to the rich; I give to the poor; I preserve peace among my neighbors."

"But," asked the Brahmin, "do you occasionally stick nails into your behind?"

"Never, reverend father."

"I am sorry," the Brahmin replied; "you will certainly never attain to the nineteenth heaven."}}

( {{u|Bishonen}}, the source of this edit is a secondary source, not a primary source.)

:Soham, this contribution would be poor regardless of your topic ban. Yet again you are falling into the trap of unnecessarily quoting stuff at length. It makes for easy writing, sure, but it also makes for a very poor encyclopaedia with articles that resemble disjointed quotefarms. You really do need to get a grip on the concept of paraphrasing. - ] (]) 14:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

:Oh, and while I do not know what the source is, {{tq|dismissed asceticism with contempt and his characteristic humor}} reads like it might be an extremely close paraphrase, which is another recurring issue with your edits. - ] (]) 15:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

*Are you asking me if it's OK under your topic ban from India-related editing to add an anecdote centering round a Brahmin, a member of a Hindu priestly case, to an article? The answer is no. I don't care what source it's from. Please leave these matters completely alone. Steer clear of them. ] &#124; ] 17:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC).

==Disambiguation link notification for July 23==

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (&nbsp;|&nbsp;). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

== ] arbitration amendment request archived ==

The , which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to ]. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' 06:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

== My Appeal ==

{{u|Twobells}} and {{u|Mohanbhan}}, just wanted to thank both of you for the vigorous defense that you put up on my behalf. Even though i lost the appeal in my opinion some good may come out of it eventually due to my bringing the matter to public attention particularly since i was able to inform {{u|Jimbo Wales}} about what was going on (] is surely a concern for Jimbo) and if similar cases go to ArbCom in the future the verdicts could be different. I respect the decision of ArbCom, even though i vehemently disagree with it. ] (]) 13:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

:Please don't mention it Soham. I am really quite disturbed by your topic ban. Most, if not all, of your disputes concerned the use of certain writers who were (and are) being systematically excluded from wikipedia. Since ArbCom was not engaging with the subject (they traditionally don't, and perhaps can't, since they have a lot of other responsibilities) and were only looking at whether your interactions were "friendly" nothing that we said about the real nature of the dispute mattered to them. Content disputes should be settled by subject-experts IMO, and content disputes should not be turned into conduct disputes. Some of the proposals made here ] are worth reviving. -] (]) 15:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
::{{u|Mohanbhan}} and {{u|Twobells}}, if you think it appropriate we can argue our case in further detail on {{u|Jimbo Wales}}'s talk page. As i understand there is considerable latitude permitted in conversing on his talk page. ] (]) 15:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Admin {{u|SpacemanSpiff}} had pinged six editors, including three Admins, in his comment on my appeal where he continued making serious accusations against me. The fact that only two of these people ended up posting on the discussion (one of them, {{u|Shrikanthv}}, stating that i should not be banned) tells its own story. ] (]) 14:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

: Nothing of the sort. I avoided joining the ARCA proceedings because I noticed that it was going badly within a few hours, and didn't care to make it any worse than it was already for you. I agree with everything your critics have said, and I think you would do well to learn from the experience. All the best! - ] (]) 14:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
::If you would have posted anything against me in the ARCA discussion i would have pointed out the several occasions on which you have 'Thanked' me for my edits, and also sent a Goldfish to me on my talk page thanking me for my edits on a certain page. (I have also 'Thanked' you on one occasion on the talk page of that page.) I would also have pointed out that you were one of the editors who had been accused of colluding in a particular article by {{u|ABEditWiki}} in an ANI discussion; this is the same article in which collusion has been taking place acccording to {{u|Kenfyre}}, {{u|Twobells}} and others including myself. (I am not naming this article because i might be in violation of my Topic Ban if i do so.) ] (]) 14:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

:::I do not know about Soham's offence. But, I saw his edits in ] on 12th and 13th June,2015. It was of high class. Morning shows the day. Finally, ] and everyone learns. ^_^ ] (]) 14:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC){{od}}
Thank you very much {{u|Ghatus}} ] (]) 14:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

:::: Yeah, we are all on the same side, sort of. But I refuse to draw the battle lines the way you guys do. - ] (]) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

:::::All his work has been of the highest class, albeit wordy ;-) I can understand why certain editors feel threatened by it, however, he needs to listen more to admin and accept their decisions even when it feels unjust. I recommend he learn more about the rules so he can avoid the most obvious attempts at mischief by a minority of editors. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
I think you should read ]. ] -] 15:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

{{u|Twobells}}, did you notice {{u|Bishonen}}'s threat to block {{u|Mohanbhan}} after Mohan had made several comments supporting my position in the recent appeal against Bishonen blocking me? Please take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bishonen#Edit_summary ] (]) 15:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
:Let it go buddy, it's done. As I said earlier, learn from ''your'' mistakes as we each had to learn from ours, you have a great future on Misplaced Pages '''if''' you can reign in your criticism of administration, it serves no purpose apart from testing their patience and to be fair they have been quite patient. Like I said learn from these mistakes and move forward, likewise, I will do whatever I can to help and advise you in any way I can, regards.]<sup>]</sup> 15:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
::ok. ] (]) 15:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
:::Come on, lets see a ] face.]<sup>]</sup> 16:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC){{od}}
{{u|Twobells}}, I am unable to smile right now because i am in the process of getting a divorce. ] (]) 16:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
:Sorry to hear that, I really hope things work out for you and your family.]<sup>]</sup> 17:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

== Hey ==

Hey Soham, this is Rabtman. It seems as if you are being threatened of blocks because some editors do not agree with your edits based on their personal interests. Well...same here. 05:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)] (])
:Remember to be patient, and beware of ]. One person who has also complained recently of a group of editors trying to get him banned, because of differing viewpoints, is {{u|Twobells}}. Twobells is a very experienced editor; i would advise you to seek his advice about how to handle the situation. ] (]) 05:54, 31 July 2015 (UT
::: Yeah, I'll go see him immediately. Thanks, and good luck. If you need any support, I can help.{{od}}
{{u|Rabt man}}, Please remember to sign all your posts. Also, please know that canvassing is not permitted as per ] when it comes to ANI or ArbCom or any other appeal. In such a case, only if you mention a particular editor by name in your appeal, then you can leave a neutral message on their talk page saying you have mentioned them in your appeal. When you discuss the present problem with Twobells, i think he will be able to advise you better if you tell him the name of the disputed article(s) and also the editor(s) with whom you had problems. ] (]) 06:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you ''must'' verify that externally by one of the processes explained at ]. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see ] for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at ] for more details, or ask a question ].
::::Hey Soham, how are you? I'm not quite sure what canvassing is, but i'll go check right after this. I have mentioned the name of the article, but I did not quite mean one editor in particular, but rather a whole group of them (there is a lot of them over the course of the article and they know each other ). So what should I do then? Also, I just read the top section, and I wish you the best of luck. I am a single parent as well.] (]) 06:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC){{od}}
{{u|Rabt man}}, Just give all the facts to Twobells and follow his advice. Thanks for the good wishes. Pleased to meet you. ] (]) 13:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. <!-- Template:Db-copyvio-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> — ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
{{u|Rabt man}}, you may also wish to see the talk page of {{u|ABEditWiki}} who had to face the same situation you are now facing. Two other editors with who you could consider discussing your issue, and seek advise from, are {{u|Kenfyre}} and {{u|Mohanbhan}}. These two are very balanced and experienced when it comes to facing the kind of issue you have been facing. ] (]) 13:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:04, 19 March 2022

I am primarily interested in editing WP pages on philosophy, history, and literature.

SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Soham321. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump Sexual Misconduct

It's not RS because the butler is clearly not independent and is also intensely "loyal" to Mr. Trump, as a good butler often is. If you don't like "not RS" then it's clearly UNDUE. Just because a self-serving statement is repeated in the news media does not make it well-sourced content for an encyclopedia. Please undo your reinsertion, which is a violation of DS, and state your view on talk. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali

Greetings fella. You might want to keep an eye on the article at this very time, as there's a touch of edit-warring going on regarding title reign stats. I won't be able to check for another twelve hours. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

My source from Muhammad Ali's page on Boxrec.com: On September 14, 1964, Ali was stripped of the World Boxing Association title for signing to fight Sonny Liston in a rematch. The contract for their first fight included a return clause, which the WBA did not allow.

Ali was WBA heavyweight champion 4 times. From February 25, 1964 to September 14, 1964. From February 6, 1967 to April 28, 1967. From October 30, 1974 to February 15, 1978. And finally from September 15, 1978 to September 6, 1979. It is on the BoxRec.com website. Please allow me to correct this Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=NN4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=sonny+liston+wba+heavyweight+champion&source=bl&ots=HvzAMIKSdk&sig=C41zZ5KG9_e-N1pmhTnLRJHqaM8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuwpH67trQAhUFxWMKHYULDJI4FBDoAQgcMAE#v=onepage&q=sonny%20liston%20wba%20heavyweight%20champion&f=false

This article from Ebony magazine will prove that both Sonny Liston and Muhammad Ali were recognized as champions by the WBA. And that Ali was stripped of the WBA title before regaining it against Terrell Tmacmusicmagician (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Biographies of living people

With reference to your comments at ANI:

  1. There is nothing "peculiar" about asking for urgent admin action to prevent BLP violations - particularly when the offender has been given multiple chances to retract. WP:ANI is the correct venue for that.
  2. There is no "AE report": it is an "AE ban appeal" and it was Hidden Tempo's choice to open it. That does not give him immunity from sanctions for BLP violations.
  3. Misplaced Pages takes any violation of BLP policy extremely seriously. This isn't a trivial matter or even a matter just for Misplaced Pages. The Wikimedia Foundation board was concerned enough to pass a resolution on the issue - see wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people.

I'd urge you to thoroughly read WP:BLP if you're going to be contributing to biographies of living people – even more thoroughly if you're editing in an area subject to discretionary sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

RexxS i've thought about this and i am in complete agreement with you as far as the WP:BLP policy is concerned. Besides everything else it is a fool proof method to place the burden of responsibility for any negative content about the living person on the referenced source. I wish we could have explained this more gently to Hidden Tempo keeping in mind the fact that he is a new editor. Soham321 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. As a sort of "olive branch" to HT, I've tried to make some specific suggestions on how to make use of the NBC News source on his talk page. I arrived late to this party after I saw his post on Bishonen's talk page, as I don't follow US politics. Nevertheless, I do agree that it's a pity somebody didn't explain more to him earlier. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply

To this:

  1. If someone was not a new user, this is not a problem. He simply might have a previous on-wiki experience. No one was talking about WP:SOCK. This is something I did not investigate.
  2. Providing an opinion about a user who appealed their topic ban on AE is fine. The opinion was based on diffs and other comments provided by other users on the page. This is not WP:BATTLE. I never interacted with this user before.
  3. Commenting about WP-related essays or other materials written by other contributors is also fine.

In brief, nowhere in my statement I made a bad faith assumption. Please reconsider. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you continue doing this on WP:AE , I would like to clarify that no, I do not agree with your comment, and I did not take anything "seriously" because there is no way to consider my comment a BLP violation. I hatted it to simply minimize disruption that you created by filing this duplicate ANI request instead of discussing this with me here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
My very best wishes, my understanding of WP policy is that had you not hatted it you would have received a warning and an Admin would have hatted it on your behalf. As I mentioned your comment involved multiple violations. Read these comments for why others think your comment was inappropriate: diff1 and diff2. Soham321 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I did not receive any warnings, and I would not receive any warnings. This is because my comment was not a BLP violation or any other violation. Does it really matter now? No it does not, unless you want to debate this to nausea. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is the diff of your comment for anyone reading this page. Soham321 (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC) And a follow-up diff showing you read the request to retract your comment Soham321 (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

My editorial judgement was not vindicated

Kingsindian has made a cogent argument for why Gilberthorpe is not a credible witness, and I accept his rationale, so you might want to remove that part of your post. (For the record, I became involved in the misconduct article primarily because a careful reading of the sources—and some OR—persuaded me that the claims about Trump running pageants for his own benefit and being free to barge into dressing rooms at his leisure are dubious; at the very least, Misplaced Pages's refusal to acknowledge the "counter-witnesses" interviewed by Buzzfeed et al. in the "Miss Teen USA" section—even though they were in the majority—struck me as an odd editorial omission. I've never had an interest in the "he-said, she-said" of the groping accusations, other than to note that the timing four weeks before an election and the ensuing saturation coverage created the risk of a pile on effect—Jessica Drake accusing Trump one day prior to the launch of her new "online sex store," for example, certainly raises questions about possible ulterior motives. That said, the Trump camp's claims need to be scrutinized as well, and they probably shouldn't have put Gilberthorpe forward. In sum—while I wouldn't call this a damning indictment of my editing—I was in no sense "vindicated.")TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I am making a clarification about this in the AE discussion. Soham321 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump misconduct

Soham, the reason that TTAAC's content stayed in the article so long is that few other editors are prepared to edit war in violation of ARBAP2. Basically, once it was reverted ARBAP2 tells us to keep it out so that the matter can be resolved on talk before reinsertion. When an editor violates this and reinserts disputed content on an article subject to this sanction, other editors will generally stand back rather than reinsert it only to set up another round of edit-warring. Your recent message at AE doesn't seem to reflect the DS restriction as the primary reason for the defective content's relative longevity there. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That's incorrect. My edit was reverted almost immediately. The content was later re-added by someone else.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: twinkle issue

Ah, good thing you told me. I didn't realise using the "" function on my end counts as reverting vandalism. I always thought it was identical to "(undo)". Will be more careful in future. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Feedback request

Admittedly, anything to do with Ali's religious beliefs is completely outside my scope of interest. I only deal with the statistical side of things relating to his fights, namely record tables and succession boxes. You will likely garner more feedback from those who have been more active in maintaining the article as a whole. Sorry I can't be of any help in that aspect. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply to your note

Hello, Soham321. You have new messages at FT2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Didn't see this until now. FT2  16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ali

Hi, Soham - I gave the article a quick look - it's a long one and will require some quiet time. I'll go back and give it a closer look after the weekend. I'm still trying to deal with the rapid expiration of yet another year!!! wine*<:o) 00:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Atsme, No worries. Take your time. Soham321 (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

A happy Yule to you as well. The Muhammad Ali article continues to grow and improve thanks to your ongoing initiatives, and I suggest trying for a GA or FA nomination next year. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

And a merry...

Thanks for your holiday greetings and the same wishes to you. DonFB (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

2017

Keep jabbing and moving! All the best Spicemix (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Very Happy New Year!

Have a wonderful time over Christmas & New Year and thanks so much for your seasons greetings! Twobells (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

From my tlak page" Thanks for wishing me on my talk page. I appreciate and reciprocate your kind greetings although i wonder if you mistook me for someone else. I don't recall interacting with you before. Soham321 (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I basically have turned into a Wikignome and do lots of lurking, rather than the frantic editing binges I used to do. I do note work by others but have concentrated on some very obscure themes, such as North American aviation films. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Premature RfC's

Dear Soham, Please note the procedure Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. (at WP:RFC). It is counterproductive to file RfC's before discussing the issues ahead of time. RfC's are a way to get outside input if an agreement cannot be reached among the involved editors. Also, good RfC's must be focused, deal with a single yes/no question. The ones you are filing are too unwieldy, raising a whole range of issues at one go. This is not the way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

this is true but when there is a fundamental disagreement with respect to misrepresentation of source material then extensive discussion is not possible. Soham321 (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for unending WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior

I've blocked you indefinitely for disrupting the encyclopedia pretty much ever since you started editing here. The straw that broke the camel's back was the AE thread you recently opened, but there have been months and months of it, and I have no doubt it would continued if I had tried to craft a topic ban instead. This isn't an WP:AE block; any admin can unblock if they come to believe that you will stop this behavior. But I've seen enough to know it will never be me who unblocks; I've seen enough to know that you will not change. Template with unblock instructions will be added below in a minute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Note to Floquenbeam

Hi Floquenbeam, i just wanted to note that i consider you an involved Admin as well and as such I believe it is inappropriate for you to place an indefinite block on my account in the middle of an AE discussion. Please advise me on my options on how to file an appeal of the block you have placed on me (in the course of which I shall be presenting evidence of why I consider you an involved Admin). Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not involved, and the instructions for requesting an unblock are right up there in the template. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, is it all right with you if i present evidence of you being involved right here? Soham321 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Soham, before you go down the "involved" route please do ensure that you have actually read and fully understood the thing. A lot of your difficulties have been because your understanding of various policies etc has been way behind your willingness to invoke them. - Sitush (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't care what you do here; as long as you're restricted to your own talk page, your ability to disrupt the encyclopedia is significantly reduced. But please don't ping me just to make sure I see why you think I'm involved, as I will not be reading what you post. If you have a question, then ping me. Gratuitous pings are about the only disruption you can still cause, so I'll be removing talk page access if it looks like any pings are intended to pester, rather than question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Risker

pinging senior Admin Risker, with whom i have never interacted, to look into my situation and advise me if she thinks I am an asset to WP. Soham321 (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea whether or not you are an asset in the content area; I'm not going to review your edits. I rarely consider anything resembling unblock requests, which I'm assuming this is intended to be, in some way. Reading your talk page, particularly all of the stuff below, I'm not motivated to review your situation. Even though we rarely communicate, I generally find myself in agreement with Floquenbeam's actions, and nothing you have written has inclined me to think that this particular block would be grounds for me to make an exception to my usual practices. Risker (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. This was not an unblock request. As i have said below i am quite happy to remain blocked while the AE case continues. Soham321 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Note to anyone reading this page

(I began writing a response to Sitush's recent comment on my talk page; but after seeing Floquenbeam's subsequent comment, while i was composing my response, i decided it would be best to place this in a separate section):

Sitush, why am i not surprised to see you come to the defense of Floquenbeam after he indeffed me for a discussion which involved you? Isn't Floquenbeam the same person who had swiftly lifted the indef block on you placed by the now retired Mike V after you had threatened to gun down an editor with whom you had been involved in a dispute with (your comment had been revdeled but it should be accessible to Admins who wish to investigate why you were indeffed by Mike V). Add to this Floquenbeam's interaction history with you (the two of you exchanging frequent pleasantries on each other's talk pages).

Finally, as evidence of Floquenbeam's inherent bias against me (stretching much before this case), consider this comment of Floquenbeam made in the course of my appeal to ArbCom:

If we're invoking WP:NORULES, does that mean I can just block this guy as a timesink if I think it would improve the encyclopedia? That was mostly a rhetorical question - I suspect it would suddenly become very important to Sohan that the rules be respected - but here's a serious one: when ArbCom rejects this, as I am sure they will (AE was closed 5-0 against revising topic ban) could Arbcom please shut this guy down, and shut him down hard, so he doesn't waste quite as much of everyone's time after this? For example, forbidding future appeals in any forum for the duration of the topic ban.

ArbCom did not "shut me down, and shut me down hard" as Floquenbeam wanted, although they declined my appeal to overturn my topic ban (which expired more than one year ago). No further sanctions were imposed on me. Senior editor Rich Farmbrough (not pinging him because Floquenbeam has threatened he would remove my talk page access if i ping others for anything other than questions) had expressed partial support for my appeal to ArbCom. In a subsequent comment, Rich Farmbrough had responded to Floquenbeam's comment (given by me earlier) with these words:

@ Floq. There is no compulsion to comment on Soham's requests - or even to read anything Soham posts.

I would like it to be determined whether Floquenbeam is WP:INVOLVED with respect to me through his words and behavior which prohibited him from imposing the indefinite block he has placed on me after i expressed my views in an AE discussion. Soham321 (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't come to Floq's defence - read what I said, not some subtext that exists only in your own head. I also haven't taken part in the discussion regarding you at WP:AE. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:INVOLVED refers to situations where we're at odds in a content disupte. I have no content dispute with you - I don't edit, or know anything about, articles in the India/Pakistan sphere - All I've done is notice your long term disruption a while ago, and occasionally keep an eye on you because of it. It is not a violation of WP:INVOLVED to notice your disruption, comment on it, and when it continues, eventually block you for it.
You can ping people once if there's a legit reason to think they wouldn't mind; I have no concern if you ping Rich once, for instance. It's more the likelihood of you pinging people you're in conflict with, or me, repeatedly, that I'm warning against. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, i disagree with your interpretation of WP:INVOLVED. Let's consider what the text pertaining to WP:INVOLVED says:

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.

In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.

You are definitely involved because when you made your comment in my ArbCom appeal--expressing a clear bias against me, invoking ArbCom to "shut him down, and shut him down hard" (your request was ignored by them)-- you had made it in your capacity as a regular WP editor; you were not expressing your views in an administrative role since you didn't get to decide what the outcome of the case would be. Nor were you involved at any stage of my case in an Administrative capacity. Soham321 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I made that comment as an admin aware of your previous disruption. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Let us let uninvolved Admins decide whether your comments in my ArbCom appeal were made in your capacity as a regular editor or made in your capacity of being a WP Admin. I think you will agree that we had never interacted before prior to you making those comments. The fact that the ArbCom appeal process (this was an WP:ARCA case) prohibited you from acting in your Admin capacity, the fact that you had never interacted me before making those comments (not as an Admin, not as a regular editor) makes me believe that your comments in my ArbCom appeal should be construed as being the comments of a regular WP editor. Notice these words from the first paragraph of WP:INVOLVED:

Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

Soham321 (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
You will need to formulate it as a proper unblock request. Probably a good idea to read WP:NOTTHEM first. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Sitush, There is an ongoing AE case pertaining to me. I am sure the AE Admins are scrutinizing this page. Asking for an unblock right now would complicate the AE case even more. I am quite happy to remain blocked while the AE case plays itself out. Soham321 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Topic and page bans

Per the discussion at WP:AE, please note that you are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages dealing with the realm of WP:ARBIPA (India, Pakistan and Afghanistan). You are also indefinitely banned from filing cases at Arbitration Enforcement. Your topic ban has been noted at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016. Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Black Kite, thanks for the AE notification. Do i have to now make a separate appeal for lifting the indefinite block? Soham321 (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you do. The way to do it is to post a block appeal per the instructions in Floquenbeam's block template (the "December 2016" section above). Bishonen | talk 01:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. I think i'll take a break from WP. I'll file my block appeal whenever i feel like continuing editing here. Soham321 (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Disillusioned by your block

Hi, while I came across your edits for the first time only a couple of days ago, your block has honestly left me quite disillusioned about this whole place. Even if the avenue which was chosen (AE) to raise your concerns was procedurally not the appropriate one, I am at a loss to understand that it lead to your being blocked. While it may land me in trouble going forward, I must state that the cavalier attitude displayed by some of our esteemed admins in tackling the situation was quite disappointing. You repeatedly provided your reasoning to justify filing the AE request (a. Simply no hope at all of making any headway when the other editor brazenly misrepresents sources, b. Your understanding based on prior experience (which you showed evidence for) that once the Rfc has been filed, disputed content shall not be edited). I am amazed that no admin (apart from RegentsPark) seemingly even bothered to understand/respond to this. All this despite two other editors (myself and Kashmiri) stating that they have also had issues working with the other editor. A professional approach on part of the adjudication committee would have been to suggest taking the case to a more appropriate forum (such as ANI I believe), rather than just blocking you.

In any case, there is much more to life than editing Misplaced Pages, and I hope you are enjoying your time away from this ! Whether you decide to come back or not, I wish you the best. Js82 (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I said that there was no case. Soham could have withdrawn the case, or at least kept quiet so it might have been closed. Let this be a lesson, for all the watchers. Happy New Year! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya3, i am going to respectfully ask you and everyone else on the "opposing side" of the AE case to refrain from commenting on this AE case on my talk page. We have different opinions about the case and you are entitled to your opinion. But please let there be no grave dancing on my talk page. Soham321 (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Js82, I am currently trying to educate myself more about how Misplaced Pages (WP) works. Despite trying to familiarize myself with WP:RULES, i clearly remained ignorant about how WP operates. In the finest WP criticism forum i have come across (it is not WO), someone reviewing my block has written:

Your mistake was in assuming Misplaced Pages has the capacity to deal with mutli-facetted disputes, which encompass multiple people, involve personality and content issues, over long time periods.

Misplaced Pages cannot do that. It has the systems, sort of, but not the people.

On Misplaced Pages, the system works by examining personal conduct issues only, for as brief a time period as necessary, with a view to picking a winner, banning a loser, and filing all other matters, namely the conduct of other people and all matters of disputed content, in the bin marked 'let's see if anyone gives a shit about that stuff later, after we have finisished our tea, biscuits, and self congratulations'.

Floquenbeam, with his <redacted>, <redacted> and assorted other <redacted>, is quite suited to the latter, but not so much the former. Hence the outcome here, at his hands.

I cannot quite believe you expended this much time and energy on these <redacted>. But sometimes it is necessary for people to do that, before their eyes are truly opened. Use your experience to help others avoid the entire <redacted>.

Soham321 (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
"From now on"? No, that is actually the last straw. Your talkpage access has been revoked. Bishonen | talk 20:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC).

Missing your work -- come back after you cool off

Soham321, I have reviewed the AE case and I frankly agree with the consensus decision. However, that consensus didn't include being blocked forever from the entire site. So, once you have cooled off and have considered areas where you can improve in terms of following policy, I hope that you will ask to be unblocked. You can ask on the basis that you have contributed a lot of valuable content outside of the topic area you have been banned from, and I can attest to that. I would also recommend re-committing yourself to a more cooperative editing experience and vow not to repeat the recent mistakes. If you are concerned you cannot work on Muhammad Ali in India, I would be happy to help steward your changes into article space, given the topic ban doesn't extend to your user space where you can develop a copy of the article. The bottom line is that your work is missed and the Misplaced Pages needs the positive side of your work. Stevie is the man! 19:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid a topic ban extends to all pages, including the user space, talk pages etc. What you are suggesting here amounts to proxy-editing, which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Sadly, Soham will need to stay away from all IPA topics until he can demonstrate his good conduct somehow. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:PROXYING says "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." (italics are mine) I would indeed show (via edit summary or talk page explanation) that changes are verifiable/productive, and as I'm the one who asked because of my own independent reasons, I think this is all covered. Note that Soham321 is not implicated in his work on Muhammad Ali-related articles, as far as I know. Also, to say Muhammad Ali in India is a typical article among India-related articles seems a bit of a stretch. Stevie is the man! 00:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Rana Ayyub for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rana Ayyub is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rana Ayyub until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. NehalDaveND (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Muhammad Ali vs. Leon Spinks

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Muhammad Ali vs. Leon Spinks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Muhammad_Ali_vs._Leon_Spinks_(1st_meeting). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Misplaced Pages to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Misplaced Pages's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)