Drisha herjee

Welcome!

Hi Drisha herjee! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Ekdalian (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

user historianalfredo is engaging in vandalism, please check ahir clan article, I have provided University of Chicago books Drisha herjee (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

- Ratnahastin (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- Ratnahastin (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Not vandalism

'Vandalism' has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, see WP:VANDAL to know what exactly it is. The edits you are calling as vandalism are in fact not vandalism(WP:NOTVANDAL)[1][2]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree the user HistorianAlferedo is using British Raj sources

The user HistorianAlferedo has removed contents from university of chicago, JN university, london school of economics, Oxford

removing edits which follow Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Wikipedia is vandalism Drisha herjee (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVANDAL, repeated aspersions of vandalism may be perceived as personal attacks. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Caution: Regarding caste articles

Since you are aware of contentious topics, please be careful with not just your edits related to caste articles, but also your statements on the talk pages. In case of dispute, be civil and use the article talk page in order to arrive at consensus. If it doesn't work, I mean discussion, you may go to WP:DRN! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Ekdalian, the user HistorianAlferedo is removing academic contents repeatedly, and also user HistorianAlferedo is making edits with raj sources of 1900 which are not reliable sources

kindly look at the edits and reference I have put they are all academic sources from universities Drisha herjee (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a personal blog

Hey, I would like to inform you that information added on a wikipedia page should be added unbiased and with proper genuine citations. The changes you made to the page ‘Ahir clan’ seems to be vandalism and you’re advised to add correct sourced information only. Thank you HistorianAlferedo (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Hi Drisha herjee! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Ahir clans several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Ahir clans, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to use the dispute resolution. These are sourced valid contents, you cannot remove them with out discussion Drisha herjee (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Drisha_herjee reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: ). Thank you. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Ahir clans. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

user HistorianAlferedo is the one doing edit warring, please check article ahir clans, user Ekdalian has warned him as well for edit warring, also user HistorianAlferedo is using raj based 1900s sources to edit which are un-reliable, also if you look at edit history of User Ratnahastin and user HistorianAlferedo they appear to be colluding in rajput based articles and when user user HistorianAlferedo is asked a question with in a minute User Ratnahastin is replying to that message, they are most likely sockpuppets, also kindly check my edits I never edit with out any academic sources and I edit with academic sources from reputed universities but user HistorianAlferedo and User Ratnahastin always edit with unreliable sources and engage in edit wars, even in rajput article User Ratnahastin has been engaged in edit war,,, I kindly request you to look at the edit history of user HistorianAlferedo and User Ratnahastin, looking at the edit history user HistorianAlferedo has been warned many times for vandalism. Thanks if you can read and respond

Decline reason:

Blaming others and making false accusations is more likely to get you blocked indefinitely; it certainly is not a good argument in an unblock request. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello, Drisha herjee,

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks before filing another unblock request. Blaming other editors will always result in your request being declined. You need to focus on your mistakes, not those of other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

A Small Suggestion

Hi Drisha Herjee, Your recent block was because of edit warring. I noticed that you’ve been saying the sources you added to the Ahir clans article are legit and reliable, while dismissing others as "Raj sources." Please avoid edit warring and instead explain on the article's talk page how the data you're providing is factual. It would really help if you mention the page numbers and line numbers of the content you’re referring to and clearly show why your sources are credible. Using the talk page to sort this out will make it easier to reach a consensus without conflicts.

Also, I’d suggest you stopping the allegations that HistorianAlferedo and Ratnahstin are socks, as this has already been declined by two admins at the investigation page. Since, your block is 48 hours only, I suggest you to wait for a couple of days. Let’s focus on improving the articles instead of pursuing these claims further. I.Mahesh (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)