Ravinder121

By Ravinder121

Ramdasias and Ravidasias are separate caste listed under constitution of India.

Ramdasia (Weaver) are the followers of 4th Sikh Guru Ramdas, whereas Ravidasias are followers of Guru Ravidas(not a weaver)

User 12.182.80.222 is vandalising by posting false information.

July 25, 2009

User Bal537 alias 12.182.80.222 is posting false information on wikipedia.

July 24,2009

User Bal537 is posting false information on Wikipedia.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Bal

This issue is a bit outside of my expertise. Please go here so we may further understand your complaint and why it is vandalism. Thanks. Law _{type! snype?} 12:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Bal537's Edits

Hello!!

I do not have authority to block. Please report the case at WP:AIV, at User-Reported section. The action will be taken as soon as possible.

Regards

Hitro talk 17:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

not vandalism

User:Bal537's edits are not vandalism, although they are highly disruptive and seem to be unsupported original research. Please stop calling his edits vandalism, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You have again called Bal537's edits vandalism. Although I have blocked him for disruption, his edits are not vandalism. If you carry on calling his edits vandalism I may block you for making personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am just fed up of his false claims .Its good that you have blocked him. Ravinder121 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

His edits aren't vandalism, please stop calling them vandalism. Also, calling them "false claims" is a bit over the top, since some editors will read that to mean you think the editor is lying. His edits are unsupported by the sources, he has edit warred and made personal attacks and been very disruptive, he seems to be mistaken, he indeed is PoV driven, but he is not a vandal. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove text from other user talk pages. Please confront this user. Do not start an edit war.--Cubs197 (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been called to Chamar's talk page.--Cubs197 (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if you would not post to User:Bal537's talk page, but rather, to the article talk pages. Moreover, please stop commenting on Bal537, stick to talking only about sources and content, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Following my warning to all editors at Talk:Chamar to not make personal attacks, along with my earlier warning to you above, you have done so again and I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for ongoing personal attacks at Talk:Chamar. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Straight out of your block, you have again made a personal attack. Moreover, you made this attack whilst blanking content from a closed project page. This bickering has gone way beyond the bounds of policy and must stop now. I have blocked you from editing for one week. If, when this block is done, you carry on with the same behaviour, the next block will either be much longer, or indefinite. I will unblock if you straightforwardly undertake not to make personal attacks of any kind: Comment only on content, not on other editors. Saying another editor is willfully posting "false information" when that editor clearly believes it to be true, however mistaken the editor may or may not be, is not on here. See also the policy on assuming good faith. If you want to edit these topics, you must cite sources or comment in a civil way on sources already given. You will not get what you want by making wanton, never-ending personal attacks. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for ongoing personal attacks and disruption (content blanking). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Book:Ramdasia Sikh

The book Book:Ramdasia Sikh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Books are collections of articles. This is not one. See WP:BPROD#The book does not contain any article and Wikipedia:BPROD#The book is an attempt to write a book from scratch

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, books may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated book prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the talk page of the book.

Please consider improving the book to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated book prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and the miscellany for deletion process allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

blocked

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 1 month, for edit warring and disruption at Ramdasia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I undid this edit because you posted within the block notice. I blocked you for edit warring and disruption and it's been a long time since the page has been protected (which as I recall was owing to your edit warring in the past). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that you meant to post an unblock request, I have done what I think you meant to do below. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2010 (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).

Ravinder121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wrote that since I am a Ramdasia Sikh and you not Ramdasia but chamar so only Ramdasia should be allowed to edit this page. How is this personal attack?? . Moreover last time you locked Ramdasia Page , I stoped comming here and after months when I came back I saw his edit and link which I removed. He then repeatdly put that link and I kept repeatedly removing it. And now I am banned for removing his link but he is not banned for putting link to a Page that was locked by you which I respected fully. How is this justified?

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit-warring. Your unblock request doesn't indicate that you understand the rules against edit-warring, or that you have a plan to follow those rules in the future, so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to unblock this account right now. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:34, 22 May 2010 (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.

Ravinder, do not post your unblock requests within the block notice. Rather, post {{unblock|your reason why}} wholly apart from the block notice. I have, for the second time, done this for you below. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2010 (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).

Ravinder121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The last time I edited I wrote to the other editor to discuss the matter in talk page if he wants to put delete Ramdasia Sikh Gotras and a discussion had started in the Discussion page when I was banend. Secondly , if two people are doing edit warring on each other then why is only 1 blocked. Just because he wrtoe to the Gwen's talk page that the other person. How is it a leveled judgment. Moreover I won't undo the Gwen edit at all and request you all to permanently lock this page so that bal537 also does not do the same.

Decline reason:

This block is about your actions, and your unblock request must address those issues, and those issues alone. Someone else's actions may help to explain your activity they never excuse it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:05, 23 May 2010 (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.

Having spent some time reading through the long and depressing saga asoociated with your block, I do not feel that any change either to your block or to the Ramdasia page. But it seems to me that you have spent most of a year arguing about this page, to no real purpose and certainly with no meaningful effect. Could I suggest, in all seriousness, that when your block expires you live with the situation and turn your undoubted editing skills to a less controversial topic? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

sockpuppetry

I have reset your block of one month because it is overwhelmingly likely that you have tried to evade this block by editing as User:Sunnyissunny. If you are found socking again, your next block will be much longer than a month. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Would You like to Help?

Hi, I am starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the [[1]]. McKinseies (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)