Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! --I am k6kaTalk to me!See what I have done16:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.
Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
You say you cited the same sources, that may very well be, but do the sources support your change to the content? You have changed the content but cited the same sources. The person who reverted your edit on the page has explained in their edit summary what the problem was. I looked through the edit and I'll use a simple enough example for you: you added Amithabh Bhachchan to the list, while there's clearly consensus on the talk page not to do so as the subject has themselves said that they do not identify with the caste. Now mildly modifying the wording to still include in the list is what would be disruptive and can result in blocks and/or bans. —SpacemanSpiff18:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sir, I acknowledge that, but that's just one thing I found altering a consensus of the talk page. The person who reverted the edit just bluntly re-instated the former statements. I ask you , pls. review the changes I made, adding some extra lines from the same source shoudnt be so unhealthy. I am very confident that I did a constructive edit, keeping in mind the self-dignity of the community. Morover, the person who re-edited had wrote something like "poorly sourced" ? How can a particular source be good earlier, and then suddenly if things are modified for a neutral waypoint it becomes an unreliable/bad source. Indianwiki (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
I don't think you understand the concept of citing sources. If the source says something we say that after paraphrasing. What you are doing is to change the meaning of those sourced sentences and claiming that you are citing the same source. That is not how citing sources work. —SpacemanSpiff18:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, now after missing out the consensus part of my mistake i went to the talk page. but the rest of my edit wasn't poorly conceived and no original reasearch has been added; the former version portray a defamatory view about the Kayastha community. Indianwiki (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)Reply
