Misplaced Pages

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bhumihar, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jha and Madanpur (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) 11:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bhumihar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jha (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) 11:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bhumihar, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jha and Madanpur (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) 11:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Bhumihar, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —MelbourneStar☆ 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bhumihar, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jha and Madanpur (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) 10:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2014

Please do not remove content from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Bhumihar, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. You replaced sourced text with unsourced - please see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I am the latest person to revert you at that article today. Your last contributions were, if anything, more suited to the article about Singh than to the article about the community in general. You also seemed to remove some sourced material that did in fact relate to etymology, unlike your own additions. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Bhumihar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ashumech527 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: ). Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Caste warning

The Misplaced Pages community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did to Bhumihar with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Vacation9 16:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashumech527. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ashumech527 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the reason is credibility of the statement added :-I want to mention that a new fictitious and imaginary theory which has evolved recently and has not been mentioned by any historians in past and in colonial era. Assumption is "Babhan (Bhumihar) has been categorized as shudra along with kayastha in british colonial period". (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=sQcGAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) this book mentions this claim but it has not mentioned which year census report did so. I am including one of the census report and abstract of book to unveil this false statement. (Census of India 1891 by British Indian govt url= https://archive.org/stream/cu31924023177268#page/n195/mode/2up, pages 190, 191 and 204 )and (Peasants and Monks in British India by William R. Pinch UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft22900465&chunk.id=s1.3.13&toc.depth=1&toc.id=ch3&brand=ucpress;query=#1, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uEP-ceGYsnYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false page no 83 and 84) clearly denote that babhans were considered as military community similar to rajputs, nairs and marathas , they fought to get included in mere priestly Brahmin list since they have brahmanic (i.e. of brahmin) origin. Please do not let some editor write some spurious and false facts which do not have historical evidences or account to back the fact. Hi everybody i am putting up the view point of one wikipedian who is providing the historical perspective rather than core and fictitious assumption. Some of the wikipedians are consistently putting up false and defamatory material about a community and showing special grudge. Please do not mention the things which is totally false and biased. please take unbiased view and Historical account when writing about any community. Biased and Defamatory things should be eliminated and historical account should be only considered when making any historic reference like while making british census reference, so please mention the copy of british census supporting the claim of above author. Whatever british census i have mentioned has not mentioned such a view point. William R. Pinch book has also supported above wikipedian (which i also agree)view point . He ( Jeffrey Witsoe) might be a renowned author but he should mention the year and the reference, all the other book tell contrary to his false assumption. Do not get so prejudiced about any community and do not judge a book by its cover. please find out the credential of the statement mentioned in the book by jeffrey Witsoe.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you

1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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