User talk:Capitals00

I clarified the relevance to Hindu practice per the reference.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I requested dispute resolution here. Please give your input FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Capitals00. I have declined the G10 tagging at the SPI report. By doing so, I am in no way indicating it has any validity. On the other hand, it's totally opaque to a responder like me – just a tagging as if the filing of a report self-proves an attack, and without any pointer to a previous finding to corroborate that notion. Absolutely, this could be have no validity, but it also could be absolutely correct. If it was possible for a person accused to foreclose the investigation itself by just deeming it an attack before investigation took place, that would destroy the whole point of the process.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Criticism of Hinduism. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.

Hi Capitals, No edit summary or justification on your edits, and reinstatement after a revert without any discussion. This is no good! you (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not reverting you. I made this edit[1] because caste system among Muslims is about muslims of numerous regions around the world, thus labelling that article as limited to "Indian Muslims" is underestimation. Since there is no separate article for the caste system of Sikhs, it shouldn't be mentioned, but since their communities have a caste system as well as others like Zoroastrians, Jains, I mentioned "among others", instead. I changed a section title to "Widows", because provided source has not used the word "discrimination" anywhere or anything similar. Is that enough for a explanation? Capitals00 (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, note that these are all subtle and contentious points. They need to be stated and, if necessary, debated. It doesn't help to resort to edit-warring. I will copy your post to the article talk page and continue there. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an open mediation request involving you over here [2] in regards to our disagreement on Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Xtremedood (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 February 2016.

The request for formal mediation concerning Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

• Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It looks you are reverting against the talk page consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Capitals00 reported by User:Xtremedood (Result: ). in this edit you revert mention of Bangladesh forces in the military victory, though an RfC about that is still visible on the article talk page. You were offered a chance for mediation but you did not accept. There may still be time for you to respond at the noticeboard to avoid a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responded, keep in mind that I am not reverting on that article for a long time, nor I am going to revert the recent edit. Capitals00 (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned here [3] in the arbitration request noticeboard. Xtremedood (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are mentioned here [4], in regards to the dispute in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 in the arbitration request noticeboard. Xtremedood (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A request for arbitration you were party to has been declined.

The request has been declined as alternate methods of dispute resolution specifically a RFC have not yet been undertaken.

For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 20:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A request for arbitration you were party to has been declined.

The request has been declined as the request should be made as an Arbitration Enforcement request.

For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 20:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to the on-gooing dispute at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. 14.98.84.194 (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly did you refer me to this page? The user in question added a sourced statement for what is actually the truth - that the war ended in a Egyptian victory (in addition to return to prewar lines). Why did you think this merited administrator attention? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to check, because you had agreed that Mikrobølgeovn is misrepresenting sources[5][6] and committing WP:OR. @Buckshot06: can you point out where did the source mention that the outcome Egyptian victory? There was no change in territory and there was official ceasefire that stopped the war, reliable sources must state that it was victory of Egypt then only we can state it. All sources only state that it was a ceasefire,[7] or mediation that was first accepted by Egypt.[8], "Four days later, Egypt declared a unilateral cease-fire, which Libya accepted."[9] There was no victory. 14:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The point I've been trying to make is that 1) Gaddafi initiated the war to hamper Egypt's negotiations with Israel, 2) Libya's invasion of Egyptian territory was repelled, and 3) Egypt held land on the Libyan side of the border when the war ended, and only withdrew after the guns fell silent. The source specifically mentions Gaddafi gave up on his war aims. This being said, this discussion should preferably take place on the relevant discussion page, and there only. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take part in this discussion, Mikrobolgeovn, especially after the undertaking you gave me on your talk page. This is an administrator-action, rather than content, query to try and clarify why this user called me in.

Capitals00, the other user added a dead-tree, hardcopy source, which no doubt he had to do some looking for, but substantiates what is reasonably obvious: the Egyptians defeated the Libyans on the battlefield. Thus you might have trouble finding this source. None of the other formulations you've advanced rule out military victory. That some authors say that is the measure of the sources: you've quoted three conflict-resolution books, and Cooper et al is a military researcher/writer: they will naturally emphasise different things. Anyway, I understand more where you're coming from now, but please remember that you may not necessarily be able to verify dead-tree sources, and one needs to assume good faith that what editors reproduce from those sources is indeed what one would find in the printed book. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: doesn't seem like Mikrobolgeovn brought anything new really and he is still misrepresenting source. If you check his earlier edit[10] you would find that link[11] (unreliable WP:SELFPUB) was available in those days, but now its dead and available only from archive website[12], it is not showing anywhere that the war was Egyptian victory, then on this edit[13] he presents a quote that says: "Understanding that his military was too hopelessly outclassed and out of condition to instigate any political changes in Cairo, Gaddafi subsequently gave up his pressure upon Egypt." Again, it is not saying anywhere that war was Egyptian victory. Capitals00 (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, and yes. Take a look at https://books.google.com/books?id=wELdCQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Cooper,+T.,+%26+Grandolini,+A.+Libyan+Air+Wars:+Part+1:+1973-1985&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-iaTK0bfNAhXDHB4KHQiRBSgQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Cooper%2C%20T.%2C%20%26%20Grandolini%2C%20A.%20Libyan%20Air%20Wars%3A%20Part%201%3A%201973-1985&f=false. Look closely and you'll see it's one of Cooper's published works, a WP:V by our standards. I cannot yet figure out a way to access pages 21-25, though. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Capitals00. 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Hi Capitals00, please note that, before giving a DS alert on a topic, you are supposed to check if the user has already received an alert for that topic. It is not appropriate to give another alert within 12 months. Frequent DS alerts constitute hounding. Please don't do it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood that he was already notified recently after I had already left the notification, his talk page is way too long that I stopped loading the page in middle and left the notice. Otherwise its not usual. Capitals00 (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Thanks for doing the Ragging mergers. As for the sexual violence in Kashmir bit, it was clear to me that there was no consensus for merger to the Human rights pages. That is why I withdrew from the process, and really have no wish to go back. It is not fair to me when you include me in an RfC announcement, even if indirectly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing, I am fine with that. Just letting you know @Fowler&fowler: that I had again pinged you on the article, but you can ignore it since it was purely accidental. Capitals00 (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that you can't change a post you made on WT:INDIA after people have already responded to it by voting at the AfD site. You may open a new section at WT:INDIA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Southeast Asian religion: disruptive forumshopping. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. After the last few days, I feel I should advise you that you may not revert an editor just because you suspect they are a sockpuppet. The banning policy permits removal of comments by confirmed sockpuppets, only after it is proven that the account is operated by a blocked or banned editor, but removing such comments is not required and is often frowned upon if removing the comment alters the context of a conversation. Also, I think I should advise you that if you find yourself needing to justify your reverts with guidelines like WP:BLPREMOVE, it's probably better to stop reverting and file a complaint at the appropriate noticeboard. The WP:3RRNO exceptions are meant to protect the encyclopedia from blatant vandalism and urgently libelous content, not an excuse to revert any edit you disagree with, and I think you are quickly running out of administrators who will only warn you about this. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seemed to have mistaken there at the time when I did removed the comment from article thinking "its obvious sock", but you are right. Capitals00 (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Building on this: Capitals00, G5 only applies to pages created by a block-evading editor. It does not apply to pages created before they were blocked. More generally, I strongly suggest you abandon your vendetta against Terabar and ProudIndian007, and focus on building content. Vanamonde (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's why I have been only tagging those articles that were created with a sock after indef block on main account. I don't have any "vendetta" against Terabar and ProudIndian007 unless there was some formality Capitals00 (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several of your tags were removed a few days ago, IIRC. There is no formal vendetta, I hope. All I am saying is that you are spending too much time in activities related to ProudIndian, and I am suggesting that you focus your energies elsewhere, as that is likely to be more productive. Vanamonde (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: That's correct and yes I got it. Capitals00 (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I was thinking that similar to Bhumihar, Jat people. These 2 articles that caused this conflict can be protected under 30/500 per WP:AC/DS. It is certainly agreeable that per WP:BRD, other editor who was disagreeing with the stable version while violating the policy (WP:V, WP:BLPCAT) had to follow WP:BRD, even after all that, the consensus on talk page is clearly supporting my edits. Now that Terabar is going to get blocked anytime and probably not stop socking since its on-going for 9 years already, I believe that solution would be to protect article under 30/500. Capitals00 (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: It seems that Drivarum is still not dropping the WP:STICK, during unblock request he had said "Lastly, after reading "Wikipedia:Edit warring" and "Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding" I admit I did "Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding" and I won't do it again."[14] But he is back to it now,[15] asking same questions for which Terabar got blocked.[16][17] Capitals00 (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your ping didn't work, I was just coming by here to check an entry on my watchlist when I saw your note. I've left a note at the ANI thread. I assume you've replied to Bbb23's question about your IP connection and he would have acted on it if he saw a need to do so, and none of the rest of us need to know what's going on there. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping is not working now. I just saw I had been pinged at WP:AN[18] but never got notified. Capitals00 (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://tribune.com.pk/story/11701/will-the-real-zaid-hamid-please-stand-up. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: This goes back, few years ago:- [19].

Do you think the following version would be better?

1. Indian Sikhs of Punjab are Muslims under cover, and they are allied with Pakistan.
2. Embracement of gold standard was a Zionist plot
3. Hindus are the actual suicide bombers in Pakistan, because they are uncircumcised
4. Pakistan's will fly on Delhi Red Fort anytime soon
5. Nuclear weapons possessed by the non-Muslim nation will either become obsolete or explode on their own regions.
6. In Islamabad, the Pakistan’s elected leaders share same fate as Mohammad Najibullah, dead bodies being hanged on poles.

Capitals00 (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not much better, as it presents the same material in the same order using almost identical wording. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Substantial similarity — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct I will find other sources for each of these points instead, will make it easier to include. Capitals00 (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since important political leaders have condemned this lynching, it can be an article as the articles about cow lynching. --Marvellous Spider-Man 13:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guess that's the next stop of the concerning editor. Capitals00 (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... to Violence related to cow protection in India. The page is under dispute. There is an admin who has been editing the page and engaging in discussions on the talk page. He, user:Vanamonde93 is away until July 5. Please do not make any edits to the article. And I do mean any edits. It would be best if you self-reverted the ones you made recently. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U can reply to the report Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Nathu_La_and_Cho_La_clashes.23Discussion_about_improving_this_page -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I agree with your comment regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots#Undue_quote_of_Martha_Nussbaum_on_lead

I have mentioned the same on the talk page. Do let me know how you wish to resolve this. Notthebestusername (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing on the Lahore page. Consensus has NOT been reached. Willard84 (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was reached on talk page, despite your continued edit warring and sockpuppetry with IP address. Capitals00 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've been specifically targeting edits made by members of other religions and been reporting it to the admins by twisting the facts that suit your own extremist ideologies. I hope to see this stopped immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aisha666 (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker) This is your first edit on Wikipedia. Who are you? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Capitals00. Just out of curiosity, and as a friendly, interested question: why the shift to the Dravidians as the 'Ur-culture' of India, while Indians have so long emphasized the Aryan heritage? Doesn't that raise a lot of problems for the Indian narratives on the Aryan identity ("Aryan" not as "race" or whatever, but as culture, language, religion, etc.)? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... that India is a WP:Featured article, per WP:OWN#Featured_articles please discuss and gain consensus on an article's talk page before making any significant edit, especially in this case, making on-the-fly changes to an edit that was made at the time of an FAR six years ago when dozens of eyes were watching. Hand-waving that some people somewhere allegedly arrives at a consensus doesn't do diddly squat for your edit. Either you make the argument, or they make the argument, but it has to be made in the current thread in Talk:India. The text doesn't say anything about slaves anyway. Be warned again to stop this nonsense. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: Seems like a misunderstanding here, because the edits I made today are not about "the text" regarding slaves, in Ancient India section of the article but some other section. According to WP:OWN#Featured_articles, "it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first" and I am clearly following it. I had only removed the problematic edits today that were made not only without consensus and in fact after total rejection on talk page.(Talk:India/Archive 38#Society section) I have already described it on Talk:India#Challenges. You have restored the problematic content in question, probably after thinking that I was altering India#Ancient India. Capitals00 (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Capitals00, as you know, in the years before the 1962 war, there were many clashes between India and China with regards to posts and patrolling in the disputed area, the most prominent being the incident at the Kongka Pass in 1959. Before around 1959, both Indian and Chinese personnel used to patrol the area, but after the war, India was not able to patrol the area as China has complete control. The category Category:Areas_occupied_by_China_after_the_Sino-Indian_War is intended for these kinds of places that India was able to access before 1958-1959, but unable to access after the 1962 war. This is also mentioned in the Category discussion. Hence, I am adding the pages back to the category. I request your understanding in not removing them. Thank you, The Discoverer (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Discoverer: evidently you are the creator of this category, the only promoter as well as the only one to edit war over inserting it. Unless a WP:RS says that these were the regions that came under control of China after Sino-Indian War, then only you can insert them. Otherwise you should stop already. Capitals00 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the category is badly named, in that case you can request for renaming. But there is no other category to classify areas that were accessible to both countries before 1959, but completely controlled by China after the war. The Discoverer (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to continue this discussion on your talk page. Capitals00 (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robot editing and script editing is indeed exceptable from the criterion, but here we have content editing too: the removal of the birth date from the infobox in particular is relevant. The criterion's meant to get rid of content that's essentially untouched by another human (basically, would we delete this under G7 if it were requested?), not to cut off our noses and spiting our faces by deleting every page that the evading editor created. Nyttend (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posted on WP:AN for clarification. Capitals00 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that 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.

Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted me over at Masanobu Shinozuka. Why? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Quixotic Potato: I reverted Freensac's edits, a blocked sock. Your one edit[20] got reverted during the rollback, I have restored it. Capitals00 (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Punjabi-language poets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider adding the word "may" before "contain." My understanding is that in TCM and Ayurvedic products, the problem is an inadvertent contamination of botanical ingredients grown in soil contaminated with heavy metals. I would make the edit, but because I consult to the dietary supplement industry, may be seen as conflict of interest. In homeopathy, the use of a diluted mercury ingredient is deliberate. David notMD (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditional and alternative medicines such as Homeopathy,[18] Traditional Chinese medicine,[19] Ayurvedic medicine, and others contain mercury and other heavy metals.[20]"

@David notMD: you can propose the edit here. Capitals00 (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I just did. Anyway, I would be happy with below, which added "may" and removed "and others" after Ayurvedic medicine, as there is no citation for other schools of traditional medicine. By the way, the citation below makes it clear that for certain Ayurvedic products, the introduction of lead, mercury and arsenic is a deliberate part of manufacture. David notMD (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditional and alternative medicines such as Homeopathy,[18] Traditional Chinese medicine[19] and Ayurvedic medicine[20] may contain mercury and other heavy metals."

Saper RB, Phillips RS, Sehgal A, Khouri N, Davis RB, Paquin J, Thuppil V, Kales SN. Lead, mercury, and arsenic in US- and Indian-manufactured Ayurvedic medicines sold via the Internet. JAMA. 2008 Aug 27;300(8):915-23. doi:10.1001/jama.300.8.915. Erratum in: JAMA. 2008 Oct 8;300(14):1652. PMID 18728265

You need a better ref for homeopathy. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Found few: [21],[22], [23] [24][25], [26] Capitals00 (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Capitals00, in regards to this edit Tulsi Giri is quite clearly a convert to the Jehovah's Witness. The source that mentions his conversion was dead due to link rot but I have recently archived the url. Also in regards to this earlier edit I re-added the articles for which I could find reliable third-party sources. If you have a dispute with my usage of citations please send me a message so that the issue can be resolved in a productive way. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@In: your two sources[27][28] regarding the conversion of Tulsi Giri, doesn't mention "Hindu" or "Hinduism" or "convert" or "conversion". For Vinod Kambli you provided [29][30] mentions no "Hindu" or "Hinduism", and 2nd one mentions no "conversion". Regarding Anju Panta you provided an unreliable source.[31] Rakesh Rajani doesn't mention his own admission.[32]

You should familiarize yourself with WP:BLPCAT, we need admission of conversion by the subject. Your sources are really far from that. I have posted a warning on your talk page over this BLP violation. Capitals00 (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this source it says "Born a Hindu in Mwanza, he went to Isamilo Primary School—which was managed by the Anglican church. He later converted to Christianity as an adult". Now I am no logical mastermind, but if someone says they use to belong to X and now belong to Y, it is completely reasonable to say they went from X to Y. Of course Rajani might have become irreligious or belonged to something else in the in-between time, or maybe deep down secretly never considered himself a Hindu, but there is no mention of that in the article and that is pure speculation. I'm sorry that you don't find the source of Anju Panta reliable but there are plenty more 1 2 that address this topic. Regarding Tulsi Giri during his tenure Nepal was ruled by the Shah dynasty dynasty and by definition was a Hindu state where the King and Government officials had to be Hindu. If Giri was not Hindu there would have been no way he would be able to be appointed to office. Also Jehovah Witnesses are not allowed to sever governments so it would be incredibly unlikely that he was a JW all along. I apologize for the Vinod Kambli article (although both citations clearly mention conversion, you must not have read the second one closely enough) it must have been a confusion with the subject and The Hindu, but either way I was not the one who had added the categories in that case I had just added the citations to the article. I cannot thank you enough for the talk page warning, it has helped advance this discussion beyond words. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's something he has to tell himself. That he was born as a Hindu and remained Hindu until he converted to Christianity. Don't do WP:SYNTH, don't create relationship between X and Y unless the source clarifies it. Tulsi Giri is also a subject to WP:BLPCAT. Capitals00 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, is it ok if I add the Anju Panta article back to the list? The sources seem to be more clear on that subject, there are more that I didn't provided. Sorry about the sarcasm in the last post, I was a bit mad. Happy editing Inter&anthro (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will post about Anju Panta on WP:BLPNB soon. Capitals00 (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've rangedblocked the range Norm was using. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to join the discussion at [33] - IvankaTr (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC) IvankaTr (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference you reversion, I've asked for

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! A.j.roberts (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Caste system in India". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 December 2017.

Hello, I'm Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I noticed that you recently removed content from Kashmir conflict without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — fortunavelut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 13:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatix Mundi: I had provided an edit summary if you had checked. Read the whole [34], the "recently removed content" was discussed for weeks because it has too many NPOV and sourcing problems, and also read [35] Capitals00 (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Caste system in India, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hello, Capitals00. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Capitals00. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of LeMel Humes, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Previous AfD was a G7, not a deletion discussion. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and G5'd this because for some reason that tag wasn't showing up when I initially reviewed. Just as an FYI though, if an AfD closes before the 7 days are up or as G7, it isn't G4 eligible. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Love Jihad doesn't seem to be NPOV. Can you add some sentences citing appropriate references? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:54A1:76A2:98FB:A08A:93A2:EB71 (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a stalemate in the discussion page after reviewing the conversation, even some who oppose to it. Only two editors showed up with some hazy sources still yet to be reviewed and most disagreed with the additional edits in a conversation that reached no consensus, one editor tried to clean up after JournalmanManila's sockpuppet's edits. So this is basically an edit made by a block-evading vandal whose edit topic was mostly rejected by a majority without consensus. I wan't to thank you for indicating the talk page though. (N0n3up (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Capitals00, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, —MBL Talk 05:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I saw this edit? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: I just accidentally clicked some buttons on browser while writing a lengthy message. Capitals00 (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise, I think I reverted your main message too. Sorry about that, you might want to go and restore it? Take care! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Kashmiris. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Capitals00, just FYI, a new user was created recently(2-3 hours) which has a username quite similar to yours - Capitalists008 (talk · contribs). The user was disrupting some pages on my watchlist. I am not sure what is the Wikipedia policy on User names which are quite similar to other long term editors. This could also be a potential blow-back from the recent SPI investigation against Nangparbat. @Bbb23: for additional guidance. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mar4d. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rape in India without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mar4d (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should describe my changes[36] with "an accurate edit summary", despite I already have. This frivolous notification is just another example of your WP:IDHT and WP:DE. Capitals00 (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, on Muslim conquests of Afghanistan, you had made numerous mistakes. This includes for practice of ancient Hinduism by Kafirs, using a source "Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia" p. 205 which wrongly mentions Ghaznavid raids into Kafiristan with capture of Nardain in 10th century, however it took place in the 11th century. On p. 217 it also wrongly describes Sabuktigin attacking it in 1020-21 though he died long before in 998. In addition, you wrongly mentioned Al-Beruni describing the Afghans/Pashtuns in 8th century, though his work is from the 10th century as clearly stated by your quote from "The Afghans" by Willem Vogelsang. You also wrongly stated Ferishta as describing them in 10th century, though he was talking about them in 12th century per your source "E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam". He also didn't live until 16th century. In addition, the qutoes you added did not talk about the Afghans ever facing Arab conquests.

As such I've corrected the mistakes. After reverting, I added back your content. I used a reliable author Richard F. Strand as source for the practice of ancient Hinduism by the Kafirs. Also, I shifted the quotes regarding Afghans to a separate section title "Conversion of Pashtun-Afghan people" as much of it doesn't directly concern the Arab or later Ghaznavid conquests. In future, please check your sources before adding so that it isn't as factually wrong information or is content not in source. As your contribution is still quite helpful, so I've preserved it and only corrected poorly sources content or claims not from source. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also shifted parts of Afghanistan as a political and cultural part of India to the the article lede as well as the lede/summary of the Arab conquests. Since the Arabs couldn't permanently conquer the Indian kingdoms in Afghanistan and only the Saffarids and Ghaznavids defeated them, which I added in the Arabs conquest, it seems suitable there to provide background on them. Also as it concerns the overall situation especially in eastern Afghanistan, it is more suited in the lede. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping my content and correcting a couple of dates. Looks like I accidentally counted back instead of forward with the century or my device autocorrected to wrong dates. I also had some doubts and I was going to recheck as well as add additional source today and this is why I had also left a note on talk page[37] so that you can review these edits since you had removed them in first place.

It's good to know that keeping these important historical aspects of the article is no longer an issue. Capitals00 (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In an article i saw you mentioning about a book by Prof. Mathpal, Yashodhar , titled "Prehistoric Painting Of Bhimbetka". Abhinav Publications This is a rare book. Do you have an ebook version of this book which you would like to share? Or if you have online library access, would you like to share it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadashivamadhavada (talk • contribs) 16:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link for online preview: https://books.google.com/books?id=GG7-CpvlU30C Capitals00 (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Article redirect. NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Capitals00, i just like to give me an insight about this sources i will show tge references are for the Philippine section of Kinnara. In Philippines, there was a statue of gold kinnara at surigao dated back to 10th-13th century supported by citation from that source. Although it was comr from a valid source the user named N0n3up keeps reverting the article on the version s/he preferred. I dont want to get involve on to an edit war ,so i need some more famillar in wiki policies please treat this as a legal assistance , that n0n3up is the friend of gunkarta which you previously given a warning about edit warring. Also n0n3up is deleting every Philippine sections in India-related articles. I hope your answer will help. Thank you! (Kufarhunter (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

( Laszlo Legeza, "Tantric Elements in Pre-Hispanic Gold Art," Arts of Asia, 1988, 4:129-133.) (Kufarhunter (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]

If two people are disagreeing and reverting, then the solution to that is not to add to the mix revert yourself. If you disagree with me, it is better you discuss. I gave many chances to Kautilya3, but all you and he have done is make excuses that have little base in reality. My edits are due. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Farawahar (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You undid my edits ([38], [39] ) saying that in both articles, RAW's involvement in Pakistan is not proven. I am not sure should we discuss this separately or in same section, but they look similar so I have added them together. In both cases Pakistan is raising concern that India's spy agency RAW is involved in Pakistan. In case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, he confessed that he was working with RAW and other agencies in India. Then there was a story by The Quint, which was retracted later by Quint. Story talks about the link between RAW and Kulbhushan . Story and its retraction was covered widely ([40] , [41] ). This clearly links RAW with Jadhav. If you read article, there is no confusion, that he was RAW's agent. In case of Insurgency in Balochistan, article is full of India's help provided to Baloch insurgent. If you read Insurgency_in_Balochistan#India, it details sources from Pakistan and from abroad how India is helping insurgent. Read what Wright-Neville, British intelligence, and others. Kulbhushan himself was involved in Balochistan. Let me know your thoughts. --Spasage (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A fake video proves nothing. Nor the allegations reported by unreliable sources. By making false allegations about a living person, you are violating WP:BLP. I am sending you a warning for this BLP violation on your talk page now. Capitals00 (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you are sending warnings, I picking up from the article. There is whole section talking about confession video which you are saying is fake [[[Kulbhushan_Jadhav#Confession_video]]. Secondly, you are considering [42] , [43] ) as unreliable or fake.--Spasage (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said the video was fake and these sources are not enough for proving any involvement. Do you know that International Court of Justice had refused to play that video?[44] Capitals00 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find any reliable source which says that ICJ refused to see video because it was fake. ICJ can have other reasons to refuse to see video. What is your opinion on story by Quint. Is it unreliable as well. What is your opinion on Balochsitan insurgency and RAW's involvement. --Spasage (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guessed it because I made no mention of such association. You should be able to find the "other reasons" or just agree that the video lacks any credibility. Few allegations made by Pakistan are not fit enough for inclusion in form of categories. You need neutral sources to confirm the allegations. Why do you think that you are the only person to bother about it? It's because others are aware of WP:CATDEF, but you aren't. Policy says that "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view." Your categorizations lacked neutrality that's why I reverted them. Capitals00 (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to point fingers. Articles go in category where they belong to. I asked you, do you agree with story of Quint. --Spasage (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lets close the discussion for now. I request you to remove the tag which you have put in my talk page. Thanks.--Spasage (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to apologize for your false accusation of off-wiki canvassing. Perhaps before blaming me of "off-wiki canvassing", you should have read Wikipedia:Canvassing.

There is no bar on sister wikis given in the policy. The only bar is on stealth canvassing. However, Jedi3 has seen my edits and I'm not hiding anything. I'm openly inviting the user to opinionate. I may have given my side of the story but I'm not forcing them or inviting them to influence the discussion. They can comment against me as well.

I didn't engage in anything wrong as far as I know. I don't see the policy forbidding inviting opinions from sister wikis. If anyone who knows the policy better knows I'm wrong, they may correct me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the policy, though people get blocked on sister wikis for importing issues from one Wiki to another. Now that action has been already taken on Wikiquote, its not worth it to discuss this any more, not even on Wikiquote. Capitals00 (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so you admit you were complaining on an ill-define concept? Actually no action has been taken. The interaction ban was for another issue. Besides actual canvassing has been done openly. I only invited the user to comment. Administrators haven't raised an issue against it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced content which you initially removed by terming it as conspiracies, and later claimed it to be copyvio once you were warned for not assuming good faith was infact not a copyvio. I invite you to show me how the sourced content that you removed, first by citing improper reason and then by terming it as copyvio, was a copyvio?—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 09:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you were really willing to WP:GAME system to this extent, you would've already restored the copyright violation but you know if you did you will end up getting blocked given you have been already warned for copyright violations many times,[45][46][47] but given your incompetence and WP:IDHT issues you just can't understand a thing and relies upon gaming the system instead. The edit you restored as disruptive and should never be restored. Capitals00 (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you a simple question, the sourced content that you removed was not a copyvio as you falsely claimed (even though you had initially removed it by citing a false reason namely conspiracies and then once you were warned you changed your stance and termed it as a copyvio when your WP:DE was caught), Please show me how that sourced content was a copyvio instead of digging my past. Also, explain how was restoring a sourced content disruptive as you are claiming?—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 09:38, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even saw your frivolous warning I just went ahead to write a note on your talk page, highlighting your history of mass disruption and continued violation of copyrights as well as disruptive editing and you reverted with a meaningless edit summary despite you are being the problematic editor. and you should not be adding them. Check the dawn.com link with what you are restoring, you were violating copyrights. You should better blame your incompetence that you can't even detect what is a copyright violation despite you have been warned enough times for your copyright violations. Making these excuses or asking useless questions whose answer you already know won't help you. Capitals00 (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted twice on the same article. The situation is not solved by resorting to reverts and false accusations. And don't personally attack others by calling them incompetent.

Also, the translation which you claim is outdated is still used as later as 2014. Read this: (https://books.google.com/books?id=5-i0AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA484).

The source I used is from Professor Irfan Habib and Aligarh Muslim University. They are reliable sources. If you have a contrary opinion, then you can add it with reliable sources. But don't make false accusations nor use them to edit-war. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One can revert same edit 24x7 as long as the edit is a copyright violation. World has moved on for more than decades and you need to know "contrary opinion"? Capitals00 (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

your kind comment at my ban removal notice was really helpful. I was grateful to you at that time for a sincere assessment of you. I am in need of your views now at User talk:EdJohnston#User:Md iet, where people are again pointing toward the same discussion of India to ban me further.Md iet (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Alauddin Khalji's conquest of Gujarat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ranthambore

Slavery in India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ranthambore

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a report involving you at WP:AE. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

outdated

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban The following topic ban now applies to you: You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning. You have been sanctioned per this AE discussion. This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban. If you wish to appeal against the imposition of the ban, see WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals which explains the ways in which you may appeal. Additionally, you may ask for this sanction to be removed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard after six months of positive contributions to Wikipedia. GoldenRing (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] @GoldenRing: I had planned to propose a better solution to this problem. Let me know if you would like to hear. Capitals00 (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Alauddin Khalji's conquest of Gujarat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ranthambore

Persecution of Hindus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to News Today

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Capitals00. Regarding your email, yes, I've been following the AE report. I haven't commented, and don't intend to get involved, because it is far better that admins unfamiliar with the area review the report and decide on what action to take. The actual sanction is not very punitive and you can continue to edit in areas that don't involve the India-Pakistan conflict. My suggestion is that you do just that and appeal the sanctions six months or an year down the road. Frankly, I think it is time that all the sanctioned editors take a break from the India-Pakistan conflict pages, for their own health as well as for the health of Wikipedia. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 12:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citytaker (talk • contribs) 04:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you can revert and strike stuff doesn't mean you should. Your recent efforts in the ANI thread and SPI aren't a great idea, if only because you are involved. - Sitush (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The striking at ANI has now been reverted by myself and two admins. Surely enough is enough? - Sitush (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to revert it, but you are wrong with your interpretation. Where does WP:SOCKSTRIKE says you have to be involved or not? Sock is a sock and anyone can revert or strike. Capitals00 (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay. Look, common sense and propriety would tell many people that if they're involved in something it is not a great idea to censor what their "opponents" might say. There are plenty of other people around who are not involved and can make a determination. It just looks bad and, really, doesn't achieve much of merit. - Sitush (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Sitush said. I reverted you at ANI; you proceeded to do the same thing elsewhere. All it does is to make it harder for other folks to track the sock's behavior, and to make you appear vindictive. Vanamonde (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock was the one who reverted the strike.[48] Not you. Read WP:SOCKSTRIKE, it was completely sensible after the sock was blocked. How does it make harder for people to realize that a sock is being ignored? You can look "vindictive" towards harassment socks.

Sitush, well that essay that shows how things should be practiced and it happens every time. Do you have any essay for supporting your assertion? The person is no longer a "supporter" or "opponent" when he is a sock, and this sock is evading block 100s of times in a week. You need to encourage him to come clean instead, until then stick to WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Capitals00 (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I support the use of WP:SOCKSTRIKE, it is customary to allow suspected socks to contribute to SPI pages in their defence etc. As for the other aspect, the complaint was about you and a few others, so you shouldn't be the ones striking it, even after a block (note that I only said it's an obvious sock, I don't know if it was a bad hand account of a regular editor or a blocked account), and my blocking reason was more along the lines of disruption and in this case you shouldn't be striking anything. If it should have been done, I'd have done that when I blocked. Whether sockstrike includes words on involvement or not, it's plain common sense that one shouldn't revert or strike when the complaint is about them. —SpacemanSpiff 06:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Capitals, can you help with Shivaji GA nomination? Things are getting tricky there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_India-Pakistan regarding the ARE decision that affected you. — MapSGV (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request filed on 23 May 2018 (the appeal of certain arbitration enforcement actions by GoldenRing) has been closed as unsuccessful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, Capitals00. this looks like you're removing a perfectly reasonable talk page post. Very few people know it's Wikiexplorer; most of the page watchers probably don't. You're actually strengthening his hand by not displaying due courtesy in response. Do you really need to be dragged to ANI just to be compelled to use edit summaries? Vanamonde (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are the only person in the world who has to worry about it? Everyone who has recently edited that talk page, and so do entire WP:AIV now knows that it's Wikiexplorer13, see his block log. It was not a "perfectly reasonable" post, it was just a bunch of canvassing and harassment. No wonder that sock loves to mimic you,[49][50] since he find you to be favorable towards him. Capitals00 (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming I favor the sockmaster is silly: I've blocked him on multiple occasions, and he knows it. Why is it so difficult for you to type "sock of Wikiexplorer13" into the edit summary? It will take you literally a second for each edit. Nobody else seems to care because it's an obscure article and because nobody wishes to wade into the morass that is south Asian politics, but trust me, if you continue to refuse to use an edit summary, I will find people who care. Vanamonde (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback allows reverting disruptive socks. It is not to say that I never type it. See [51][52], when it is not known to others and I have been doing this long before your message.[53] Best you should do now is to leave it as it is, and let others object if they see the problem, though I find it unlikely that anyone will since the sock has popularized himself so much that there are hoards of admins who are ready to block him 24x7. Capitals00 (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you had used rollback, I would have been fine with it; because rollback itself is a tool meant for this sort of thing, it's use is regulated, and edits with it are tagged, allowing watchers to know that someone disruptive was being reverted. You're wrong that nobody cares: Drmies told MBlaze off for exactly this behavior very recently [54], with the same sockmaster, too. Just use edit summaries and make life easier for everyone else. Vanamonde (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes those recent reverts I made involved use of rollback, in fact every other editors and admins are using rollback now.[55][56][57] I didn't said that nobody cares I said that if someone has issue they can complain me but I haven't seen any until now and it's even more impossible because the sock is highly repetitive, making it very easy for others to identify who's sock he is and also the daily appearance of reports on WP:AIV that concerns his on-going abuse. Capitals00 (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not rollback [58] . That's twinkle rollback: they're very different. I didn't realize you didn't have the rollback flag. It's usually given out with the PC reviewer flag. In any case; if you don't have it, you can't use it, and so you should use edit summaries. Vanamonde (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also "nobody has complained and so my behavior is fine" is no justification at all. Vanamonde (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everyone is following the same standards for socks that I have been, that's why no one has complained. Rollback and Twinkle rollback are tagged differently but policies/use of rollback is same as that for twinkle rollback as per the link and there have been proposals before to remove the default rollback for those reasons as twinkle rollback does its job. I have submitted a request for rollback.[59] Capitals00 (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, as far as I'm concerned, and I believe we've had consensus for this in ANI and other places, any kind of rollback has to meet "rollback requirements". I believe also that there was a consensus for denying editors the right to use Twinkle or whatever kind of tool was used if they failed to abide by those rules. (Note that I haven't looked at the diffs here and have no opinion on them.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Well, it is possible that I am wrong about using rollback on socks, and best practice is just not to. The basic point here, though, is that I'm asking Capitals00 to use edit summaries when reverting a sock, which is what earned MBLaze a talking-to from you. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the sockmaster's earliest days of frequent ban evasion. Situation is too different that you have to just rollback his edits[60] and report to WP:AIV by citing necessary details[61] and he is blocked![62] This whole thing takes 5 minutes or less now, unlike early days when it took ages to block him. I do mention when it seems necessary.[63] I used to mention that in edit summaries since the beginning when the sock was not known to others.[64] Now he is well known in AIV and also in most of the articles where he carries out his revert-spree. Capitals00 (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"well known in AIV" may be true sometimes, but I do not advocate the whole "the admins will know" kind of thing. Vanamonde is absolutely correct in saying that edit summaries, while not mandatory in all cases, are the kind of thing that help admins. If I run into a set of unexplained reverts and the AIV report says "sock", I may just skip it because I may not want to plow through all the diffs and ask around. So, the sooner you want action, the more detailed you should be. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is why I focus in providing the necessary details on WP:AIV[65] and it works fine, given the reason behind reverting has been already stated clearly. Although the details would be different next time as I will link the newly created LTA, mentioned in the below section. Capitals00 (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just so you know, I've created an LTA case page for Wikiexplorer13, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikiexplorer13. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 06:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please accept my thanks for starting the SPI on his sock harassing me. where did u notice him ? WP:AN3 ?--DBigXray 20:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I had indeed noticed him on WP:AN3 for the first time. His behavior including the style of writing, edit warring, reminded me of none other than Wikiexplorer13. Capitals00 (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I am sure he will be back, I will act accordingly next time. --DBigXray 14:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I created a section on Talk:Rimutaka Range to discuss whether/when it should be moved to "Remutaka Range". Ross Finlayson (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have emailed me that you need my help..please free to discuss here or talk on my page.Thankyou! Binamra Deb (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was willing to discuss something I felt I can't here because your possible COI with the subject. I shortly discovered that you have been socking thus I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Binamra Deb. Capitals00 (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I registered to Wikipedia in order to edit Zhu Zhengting , could you please don't redirect this term to NEX7 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 一米八的米八 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Capitals00 - July 2018. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per this discussion on my talk page, I have restored the Locus.sh article and relisted its deletion discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure why you referred to the edits I made to Margaret Workman as unhelpful. I was attempting to clean up the article. If you notice where you reverted my edits, the article format is now completely messed up (for example Justice Workman's name is on a separate line from the first line of the article). In addition, the article as you restored it has information, while sourced, that has absolutely nothing to do with Justice Workman specifically. Finally, information about Justice Workman's impeachment should be under the impeachment category, not the top of the article. Please explain. 2607:FCC8:FE0A:8E00:ED9C:4F14:4B22:6190 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just made a deeper revert to solve the wider problem.[66] Capitals00 (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Capitals00,

I am tokyloop. Thank you for your helpful feedback.

I’d like to add some useful content. This is one example:

Tāranātha’s complete works in 45 volumes, Pe Cin edition

https://jonangdharma.com/dolpopa-pe-cin-edition-complete-13-volumes

Jonang Dharma Association

The link provides complete access to the entire work of the character of the Wiki entry, and therefore the contribution is constructive, in my humble opinion.

If I misplaced the link, please let me know the correct position. Thank you.

Best,Tokyloop (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I invite you to join the Indian military history task force, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This task force is created to deal exclusively with the topics related to Indian military. If you are interested, please add you name in alphabetical order to the participants list. In addition, you can also indicate areas of special interest across your name. Please free to ping me if you have further questions. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your reversion in detail and what is exactly needed so this back and forth reversion is arrested. Cryptic messages do not help.

My previous question has gone unanswered and I made a note of that in my edit notes too.

If you interested in helping improve the article as a reviewer - do so with a sense of hand-holding not with that of sitting on a high-chair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkarja (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems resolved. Thanks for acknowledging here, about your content removal. Capitals00 (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Capitals00. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what this is.. never made any wiki contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.82.67 (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

On 22 January 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Maidan Shar attack, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were apparently the person who who redirected Delta Meghwal to Crime in India. You were mentioned by a concerned party in an article in the press. You might want to read the article. The author seems somewhat justifiably upset. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I may be wrong, hence this note, but as far as I can see you are still subject to a topic ban on India-Pakistan conflict, broadly construed. If that is correct, you will need to strike your !vote in the AfD on Religious violence in Orissa. The 1964 Rourkala riots in Orissa had their origins in the treatment of Hindus during the East Pakistan riots at that time. I assume in good faith you were not aware of this event, it's not discussed in the article at present and and I have only raised this in the AfD discussion subsequent to your !vote. If the topic ban no longer applies, my apologies and please ignore my comment. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I see you have continued editing after I left this message without responding here. Please reply. Thanks, --Goldsztajn (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you expect a response when you have already said that "If the topic ban no longer applies, my apologies and please ignore my comment"? Capitals00 (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expect a response because as far as I can see you still have a topic ban in place. I am assuming good faith and giving you the benefit of the doubt that you made a mistake with your !vote. You can also assume good faith on my part and answer the question; do you still have a topic ban in place? If you don't have a topic ban in place, please just show me where it was removed. If you do have a topic ban in place, the demonstration of me giving you the benefit of the doubt was not bringing this up elsewhere. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was only showing that nowhere your message said that it is necessary to reply you. The topic ban was removed more than a year ago. Capitals00 (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "do not reply"; by writing "ignore my comment" I was indicating that I did not expect you to strike your !vote. Thanks for providing the link to the topic ban removal. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in complementary and alternative medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Alexbrn (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

For your information, a RfC discussion has been initiated (One point in discussion is in relation to discussion topic Child marriage in India which you were previously involved in editing.)

Request for Comment has been started @ Talk:Narendra Modi#RfC:Mentioning of Narendra Modi's marriage

Thanks for inputs

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bringtar (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending this to everyone involved in the dispute. Can we please all stop adding or removing entries from these lists, unless there is an obvius BLP issue (which for most of them, there isn't). Please let editors who are neutral on the subjects look at them instead. I have made a start on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and have re-added some entries with sources, and not re-added them where sources are flimsy. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. You had voted before. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dilli Raman Regmi is the author of one of their books, publisher [https://www.firmaklm.net/about-us/] JSTOR[https://www.jstor.org/stable/1177635] Doug Weller talk 11:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there is a depiction in the title which says interpretation of evolution.Tge claim that dashavatar is Darwin theory of evolution is deemed as pseudoscience is it necessary to remove it Ppppphgtygd (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain you recent edit to Hinduism and Sikhism? You removed two section which appear to have been well sourced without any explanation. The sections in question were "Sutak and Patak" and "Demonic possession". You also removed the section title for "Guru Tegh Bahadur", as well a paragraph on Sikh's defending persecuted Hindus during the Mughal era. All the above content appears to have been well sourced, and was removed with explanation or discussion. Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Boardwalk.Koi: "Sutak and Patak" lacks proper sourcing. Unistar Books is a pro-Sikh source and another source by UNC press only made a passing mention but no mention of Sikhism.

Demonic possession too involved only passing mention about Sikhism with the words that it "do not allow for the possibility of spirit possession".

The sub-heading about Guru Tegh Bahadur was limiting the scope of the section, that's why removed. Capitals00 (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this IP appears to be a sock of this user. Since I don’t have much of experience dealing with socks, could you take a look at this? UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Read WP:STONEWALLING. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy pasted retaliation that even my signature was not ommitted from the copy paste. Capitals00 (talk) 03:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, sorry about that! Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see Talk:Jawaharlal_Nehru for a discussion on editing and reverts. I have made changes to what the other user was finding objectionable and hope there will be no more difficulties. Exdg77 (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content without providing sources Aryan330 (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As i observed that you removed content and also removed sources which referes to page of Mughal - Maratha Wars but you didn't provided any single source.This edit can be of personal hate or agenda.so stop this. Aryan330 (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you are not answering about your removal of content,you are continuosly blanking the pages by knowing that that discussion is going on talk page as you done on the page of "Mughal-Maratha wars". Aryan330 (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
• 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.

— DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 06:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I presented the consensus. The problem is that someone like CharlesWain doesn't know how to count. Lionel Messi and Dani Alves have the same amount of senior trophies (including from youth national teams): 43. NextEditor123 (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NextEditor123, The phrase "senio titles" was contentious, and I have modified it as per discussion on talk page and reliable sources.CharlesWain (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Father of the Nation article regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 02:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Capitals00. I am writing to you so that we can avoid another dispute regarding content on Father of the Nation. Don't revert me before discussing as that was added by a third user not a party in dispute. You removed Unofficial from Gandhi saying that was agreed on talk page which never was. Rather Toddy added unofficial and then the discussion ended without a proper close. Although I have closed it now since last was was 3 days ago that too by me. I have mentioned in the result to remove Lukashenko as you did. Since you said that the title is an honorific one but at the same time it has been conferred upon some individuals officially by countries like Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and some are called by people like M.K. Gandhi. So my suggestion is that people should know the difference between two. I would request you to put official and unofficial against every name. This will make the list more authentic and would avoid any future disputes. Hope you take this in good faith. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaan Sengupta: The problem now is that your summary when closing the discussion ("Remove Lukashenko and try to add official and unofficial against every name mentioned in the list to avoid the feeling of someone being singled out. That will make list more authentic and would end future problems.") in no way reflects the consensus at that discussion. It's simply you repeating your own view. As such a further dispute is almost inevitable I'd have thought. Nigej (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej No consensus had been reached there. @Capitals00 told to remove Lukashenko and no one objected. So that is justified. As for Gandhi I gave the best solution I could give. You said that Rehman was given the title offically didn't mean that it is not Honarary. It means that Honarary doesn't differentiate in official and unofficial. It can be both at the same time. So what is better way to differentiate between the two. If you have some other idea please give. If it is better then we can surely implement. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaan Sengupta: The reality is that you want something but no one else agreed with you. To me there's consensus for exactly the opposite of what you said in your closure. I'd recommend undoing your close, as a first stage, if you really want to avoid further dispute. Nigej (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy somewhat aggreed to what I said. That's why he did that. I will remove the result at the top. I am out of this. You guys can do what you want. Its been so long now. I don't want to be stuck here any longer. I thought this might end today. Because I give a total neutral suggestion but it simply won't. If you want to reopen that discussion please go ahead. I won't interfere and have no problem. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I shall just undo the close. So that noone drags me again. I am also withdrawing my concern. Consider this so. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already pointed out there are many names there who are not "official father of the nation" so it is useless to add "unofficial" for anyone on that article. Capitals00 (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MrGreen1163 (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC) MrGreen1163[reply]

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 19:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have seen your edits on the page Bharat Ratna. You being an experienced editor, let us discuss and come to a conclusion on what needs to be kept rathern than going back and forth. I was making intermediate changes and for now, have published the section as is. I believe that the award to Nehru and Gandhi might need a mention as it has been raked up in the past by others as well. Though the recent happening was due to the issue raised by a party and the sources (Wire, Quint) are also not so impartial, we can skip this with a single line of mention rather than detail. Let me know your comments and let us make the changes accordingly. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magentic Manifestations: Your edit is still not providing accurate information. It is trying to show as if there was any criticism at the time when they got Bharat Ratna, but in actual, only Hindutva supporters are spreading misinformation in the 21st century as clearly noted by The Wire and Quint. There is no serious disagreement over it. Your Wikipedia edit looks nothing more than giving undue weight for Hindutva propaganda. You should remove it. Capitals00 (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have shortened it to a one-liner as a statement. Removed the criticism part and the excessive explanation and text, which is fine enough as a mention. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magentic Manifestations: Your write up still seemed as if you are addressing Hindutva propaganda of 21st century. I would say let some serious source criticize the said decision then we will see how to cover it. Capitals00 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Capitals00 I saw you re-added the content related to the land donation. I actually read the two sources before I removed and seems it doesn't sound correct. Not sure if you have read the two cited sources, but the two sources says:

1. "It is not clear if Sunday's announcement referred to the same land" - which means this source is not sure about what they are saying?
2. "businessman donated five acres of land adjoining a mosque" - seems this land is 27 acres and don't think there is adjoining mosque reference in any recent sources, so was wondering if this was indeed true, then probably was some other land they were going/planning to donate in 2013 and not this one?

And all other recent and past sources says that UAE govt. donated. So was wondering what you think about the only 2 sources cited there saying differently than all other sources could be considered reliable? Asteramellus (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. I agree that the relevance is doubtful. Capitals00 03:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00 thanks, yes definitely relevance is doubtful. Regarding the other change I had removed and you had added back - ".. the third Hindu temple in the UAE ...was created in 1958 ..second temple was created in 2022" - I had removed that because lead usually includes major things from the body of the page and didn't see such details on the page. I was wondering if we should add such detail on maybe the Hinduism in UAE or Hinduism in Middle East pages or other related page because this page is about this specific one. What do you think? Asteramellus (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed with this edit. Capitals00 (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00 Yes thanks, though I am not completely sure if it fits in the Construction section and also considered significant enough to include in lead. But do want to make sure that by saying "third Hindu temple" (which the source doesn't say), we are not doing something that is WP:OR. Asteramellus (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Capitals00, you reverted an edit of mine on List of converts to Islam from Hinduism article saying that "Fails self admission" but I don't understand what does it mean. Was there a problem with the sourcing? Can you guide me? 182.183.46.164 (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLPCAT. The living person is required to verify that they converted from one religion to another. Capitals00 (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw you gave CTOP alert to An Asphalt. But based on the log of CTOP alerts, since the user didn't receive the required first CTOP alert of any topic using {{subst:Contentious topics/alert/first}}, nor received previous DS alert, the alert is invalid. Thus the user is not considered aware of CTOP restrictions. Therefore, I've given the user proper CTOP alert. Stylez995 (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fix. Capitals00 (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please stop reverting the edits without due reason. I have been working on the article with due comments and discussion on the talk page. If you have concerns on specific issues, will be happy to address and I request to engage in discussion rather than a blind roll back. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you not edit war. I have added new sources, all published after 2022, including the comprehensive book of Joya Chatterji, Yale, November 2023. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the blurb from her book. I recommend that you read it carefully before attempting to engage in hermeneutics of modern South Asian history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources don't discuss the credibility of this false claim. Capitals00 (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later tonight, I will be adding a different, and more comprehensive, version of the disputed lead sentences on Gandhi's last fast in Mahatma Gandhi, which will be supported by different sources, all published after 2022 by internationally recognized university presses. I will put up an "inuse" sign before I make my edits, which will not take me more than half an hour. I trust that you will not make any edits to he lead during this time, let alone revert my edits, as you did here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Capitals,

Just so you know, the actual "standard RfC format" is to have no subsections at all. Four out of five RfCs don't use separate sections for survey and discussion.

If you're interested in RFCs, you might look over Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. This is not a big deal, but I thought you might be interested in knowing more about what's actually standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word India didn't exist back then and even after it did it only applied to lower Indus (Sindh), the true English name of Indus IS indus which has nothing to do with modern "Republic of India" Qaiser-i-Mashriq (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sindhi in Pakistan is written in nastaliq and devanagari script is NEVER used, please refrain from reverting or you will be reported Qaiser-i-Mashriq (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]