January 2024[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Poundra (caste). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. In spite of three neutral editors participating in the discussion for the consideration of your request, you have chosen to abuse them! You are aware that Poundra (caste) is a Scheduled Caste/Dalit and in spite of being aware of it's meaning, you are trying to prove that you are right, & everyone else is wrong! This clearly shows that you are just another caste warrior, trying desperately to promote their caste! Ekdalian (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Ekdalian You appear to be initiating an unwarranted attack, not me. Let’s rectify some inaccuracies. Blocking me for presenting valid points will not benefit you. The truth is unstoppable. I acknowledge that Pundra is a Scheduled Caste, not a Dalit, which signifies untouchability. Your conflation of these terms indicates a lack of enlightenment. It was never claimed that everyone was incorrect, except for the individual unjustly criticizing the Poundra caste, and the term “caste warrior” does not exist, so it's a request to ensure that future debates involve knowledgeable participants, unlike you. Sourin666 (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Let some knowledgeable editor take it up from where we left! You have already posted on the article talk page; all the best! Also, please read WP:CIVIL. Ekdalian (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Poundra (caste), you may be blocked from editing. Ekdalian (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Poundra (caste). 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:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's 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. Ekdalian (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian, let's adhere to the principles of the original research policy. The talk page is designed for discussions on controversial changes. I've raised the question on the talk page, seeking concrete evidence that labels the Poundra caste as untouchable. Despite this, no one has provided any substantiating evidence. Is your colleague not, in essence, injecting personal opinions into the article, much like what we're advised against? Sourin666 (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order to modify the consensus version of the article, you need to achieve fresh consensus on the article talk page; read WP:CONSENSUS. Edit warring won't help. Ekdalian (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian, I need your help. TrangaBellam cited non-authoritative sources from https://journals.sagepub.com/ and https://search.worldcat.org/ to claim Poundras were considered untouchable. These are public sites prone to unverified submissions. Since they lack government backing, can I remove the reference to untouchability now? Sourin666 (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, someone or the other (experienced editor) will revert you! Anyway, I shall devote some time and check other sources! Ekdalian (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekdalian, consider the reference from Banglapedia I shared. It holds more substance than TrangaBellam's. Upon examination, there's no mention of poundras being untouchable in the referenced material I provided. Sourin666 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This won't help you establish that they were not considered as untouchable hundred years ago! Better to discuss on the article talk page. Ekdalian (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can TrangaBellam's obscure reference genuinely substantiate the assertion that pounders were untouchable a century ago? The source, an unverified article, raises concerns about potential caste bias. Perhaps it is more prudent to avoid using the term 'untouchable' without substantial and verified evidence. Sourin666 (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sourin666 Have you gone through WP:RS? An "unverified article" implies the existence of a "verified article", what are they? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even though he [Mahendranath Karan], like many others, ascribed a high social status and past glory to the Poundras, their maltreatment by caste Hindus was a fact and Karan knew it. Nor is his text silent about such maltreatment. One could argue that by desiring to reinstall an original Kshatriya status and by distinguishing themselves from the Mlechhas or those considered untouchables in some scriptural terms, Karan was not ready to annihilate caste but to simply reinstate an original Varna system
— Mandal, Mahitosh (2022-05-06). "Dalit Resistance during the Bengal Renaissance: Five Anti-Caste Thinkers from Colonial Bengal, India". CASTE / A Global Journal on Social Exclusion. 3 (1): 11–30. doi:10.26812/caste.v3i1.367. ISSN 2639-4928.

Meh. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sourin666 The Banglapedia reference is an anonymous entry, not one of the entries written by established author, thus we shouldn't use it. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sourin666 Sage is a reliably published academic source. Government backing never makes a reliably published source unusable. It should be used. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Poundra (caste). Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions on caste articles[edit]

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

You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Ekdalian (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Talk:Poundra (caste) and Poundra (caste)) for a period of 1 month for edit warring and personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 11:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post your unblock request here, on your own page[edit]

Hello, Sourin666. I see you have again posted the unblock template, which was removed before, on Doug Weller's page. Please stop doing that, it doesn't go there. As you were told above, it's for posting here, on your own talkpage. Also, in the template, you talk about a topic ban. You're not topic banned, you're blocked, from two pages, Talk:Poundra (caste) and Poundra (caste). You can get this block reviewed by an uninvolved admin by posting {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} here, on this page, not on Doug's page. Bishonen | tålk 11:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I saw what you posted on that talk page. The comment contained racist personal attacks and a veiled legal threat. There are 6,000,000 other articles you could edit. Meanwhile, please read up on how to deal with WP:content disputes and WP:dispute resolution. Thanks. @Bishonen: does that last comment on Talk:Poundra (caste) need reversion? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra: this one? I honestly don't know if it's worth it, considering what a lot of inappropriate crap from several editors there is on that talkpage, not least in that very section. (Blank the whole section, maybe? But then there's more, too.) Bishonen | tålk 12:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Requesting Removal of Block[edit]

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

Sourin666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I respectfully submit a request for the removal of the account suspension attributed to instances of personal attacks on the talk page. I solemnly commit to conducting myself with unwavering adherence to Wikipedia's policies henceforth Sourin666 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After reviewing your posts I think that it would be a very bad idea to allow you to make any edits related to that article. You also don't seem to be aware of the special rules(posted below) related to contributing about castes/social groups in Asia. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

331dot (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request[edit]

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

Sourin666 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Administrators, I am writing to appeal the block placed on my account, Sourin666. I understand that my comments on the Poundra caste talk page were perceived as personal attacks, which is against Wikipedia's policies. I also acknowledge that I was not fully aware of the special rules related to contributing about castes/social groups in Asia. I sincerely apologize for any harm or disruption caused. I have taken time to thoroughly read and understand Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks, respectful communication, and the specific guidelines for contributing about castes/social groups in Asia. I assure you that such behavior will not be repeated in the future. I kindly request that my editing privileges be reinstated. Thank you for considering my appeal. Sourin666 (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a partial block from one article and its talk page. I think it's best to show that you can edit constructively on other areas before requesting that the partial block be lifted. Aoidh (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sourin666 (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourin666, do you understand that you're only blocked from the article Poundra (caste) and its talkpage, and that you're free to edit the rest of Wikipedia? Is Poundra the only thing you're interested in? I suggest you practice your newly learned skills concerning respectful communication, as well as concerning castes and social groups, in other places during your block. You have behaved as a caste warrior on Poundra (caste), so it's not very likely that administrators will want to lift your block from that. Also, it's only for a month. Bishonen | tålk 05:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I, Bishonen, acknowledge my limited access to edit the 'Poundra caste' article, the main reason for my presence on Wikipedia. There's a user who has compiled biased resources against the Poundra caste, which I find to be inaccurate. As a member of this caste, I am committed to gathering accurate information to counter these false accusations, as our community is better acquainted with our history than the user in question. No one should endure baseless accusations without cause. Sourin666 (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bishonen, the user wants to disrupt that particular article only. I had warned them regarding personal attacks as well as provided the wikilink WP:CIVIL here on 28th January; even, I had informed them about the discretionary sanctions on the same day! In spite of being aware of all these, they continued attacking editors on the article talk page! Look at their last reply, they simply want to fight for their caste; clearly not here to build an encyclopedia! Ekdalian (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, Bishonen, question the purpose of crafting an encyclopedia with inaccurate information. My commitment lies in countering and replacing inaccuracies with reliable resources by strictly adhering to Wikipedia's rules and regulations. Sourin666 (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be quite proud of your knowledge! Still, in spite of being a member of Scheduled Caste, you are not even aware that this group of castes are eligible for positive discrimination in modern day India only because they were subjected to acute discrimination (considered as untouchable) earlier! Other Backward Class are given the status of OBC, as the name suggests! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, observe the personal attacks from my respected senior, reflecting an inner grudge. Interestingly, the caste warriors defending the Poundra caste prompt a question: could there be inaccuracies in the content? When one questions its accuracy, they face suppression under Wikipedia's rules and regulations. Sourin666 (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not at all a personal attack; and there's no question of grudge, since I edit articles on social groups and castes spread across the Indian subcontinent! Look at your edit here where you are attacking me about my knowledge, that too in response to a warning issued against personal attack like calling editors as 'goons'! Ekdalian (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks are defined as disparaging or discriminatory remarks intended at another editor or a group of editors based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, ethnicity, or political convictions, among other things. Ekdalian's assumptions about my knowledge and caste are plainly disrespectful or discriminatory. As a result, this is a personal assault according to Wikipedia's standards. So this is a request, Bishonen. Please take appropriate action against this, for I am already facing mine. Sourin666 (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ekdalian is writing about your editing, not about you personally. But Ekdalian, I don't think it's meaningful for you to post further on this page while Sourin666 is blocked. Bishonen | tålk 09:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I fail to comprehend your statement. There is no indication that he is speaking on behalf of my editing; the statement is evidently directed at me personally. Is there a political dynamic at play here? Had it been me, Wikipedia would likely have taken swift action by now. Sourin666 (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

I have revoked your talkpage access since you keep using it to attack others and assume bad faith. ("Had it been me, Wikipedia would likely have taken swift action by now.") See below for how you can now request unblock. Bishonen | tålk 13:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing from certain pages (Poundra (caste), Talk:Poundra (caste), and User talk:Sourin666) for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Bishonen | tålk 13:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dambhodbhava Asura (March 11)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dambhodbhava Asura and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sourin666! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for continuing to push a caste-related POV regarding the article Poundra (caste), apparently learning nothing from your previous page block nor from the sourced information given you by other editors. Caste-warriors are not welcome here. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 19:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

You will not be unblocked to edit about castes. Wikipedia wants to be accurate, but is not about the truth so much as what is verifiable, see WP:TRUTH. If you want to tell the world what you perceive as the truth, you should do that elsewhere. Wikipedia cannot be used to right great wrongs. If this means that you will not otherwise participate here, you should withdraw your request(or ask it be closed) and abandon your account- for legal and technical reasons, there is no means of deleting an account. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information: Wikipedia is not a definitive representation of truth[edit]

Thank you, 331dot, for informing me that Wikipedia does not attempt to impose "the truth" on its readers. Rather, it empowers its readers by furnishing them with information that they can independently verify. Sourin666 (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia does not claim that what is presented is the truth, as the truth is in the eye of the beholder. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves in determining what they believe. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]