Hello, Karanth1234, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Gramanya does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ekdalian ( talk) 17:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
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) 17:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@ RegentsPark@ User:FylindfotberserkI am not a puppet account at all.I have given all my details on the page.Please revisit this conclusion as the whole edit carried out was based on discussions.I know this caste edit section makes you to believe this as sock but I can defend myself!.I didn’t find any investigation here?! Karanth1234 ( talk) 13:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Karanth1234 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See all my edits,IP address,All my discussion were constructive,Every edit was based on discussion with the respective user,Tried my level best to Neutralised the biased content.Based on what I got blocked that too as sock!.Request you to reinvestigate this.As I can observe anyone editing Marathi Brahmin or saraswat Brahmin page will be tagged as sock(Reference:Joshi punkar).This is not correct decision.Please revisit this.I can easily defend myself if investigated. Karanth1234 ( talk) 14:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I too find it very difficult to believe that you aren't a sock- but yes, others who do the exact same thing as blocked editors will be blocked themselves, see meat puppetry. 331dot ( talk) 09:36, 28 December 2023 (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.
@ Spinster300I saw your recent reply.Somehow there is some misunderstanding going on here.After Unblock I’ll join the editing process. Many alternate reference are there for that instance.
First Journal about cases and second about Gagabhatt.This reference too can be considered instead of second if you want.
Sarkar, J. (1948). House of Shivaji: (Studies and Documents of Maratha History: Royal Period). India: S.C. Sarkar.page 197.
For that journal shortly I’ll provide the complete reference.Have a nice day. Karanth1234 ( talk) 05:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Revisit Upudi census, Madhwacharya details. Shenvi and Gaud saraswat different or same(Luke and Jonathansammy) Gramanya(Luke and ekdalian) Current issue of caste census of Karnataka.(Page Karnataka). Karanth1234 ( talk) 05:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@ EkdalianI request you not to revert my edits.Just see my request to reconsider the block !,Doubting about sock is their work that doesn’t mean that I am sock here.I will defend this . Karanth1234 ( talk) 08:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Karanth1234 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
watchout all my edits and IP address.All my discussion were constructive,Every edit was based on discussion with the respective user.I tried my level best to neutralise the biased content by discussion.Maximum edit of mine was <citation needed> based on what I got blocked that too as sock!.Request you to reinvestigate this.As I can observe anyone editing few pages will be tagged as sock this should not be a reason and is not a correct decision.Please revisit this,I can easily defend myself if investigated but no investigation was carried out instead it is unilateral decision.Hope atleast Wikipedia should support democratic way of investigation. Karanth1234 ( talk) 14:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Technical and behavioural evidence convincingly connect this account to Madhwahari, at the very least. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 13:33, 28 December 2023 (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.
Per WP:BLANKING you may not remove declined appeals for a site wide block until the block is removed. 331dot ( talk) 10:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@ BlablubbsNow who is this madhwahari ?Till now they were telling some other name called josh punkar!.Common man Atleast previous admin told me to abstain from few page editing so that I’ll be unblocked(I questioned the condition as I didn’t edited any page ).What’s happening in Wikipedia! Karanth1234 ( talk) 13:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Karanth1234 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Without any problem from my end I had been blocked,
Karanth1234 ( talk) 15:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
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
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:04, 29 December 2023 (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.
Being blocked by a Wikipedia administrator typically follows a specific process. Here is an overview of the typical steps involved:
Did anyone followed this Atleast warning ?No chance just I got doubt and block.
Karanth1234 ( talk) 04:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@ RegentsPark Being blocked by a Wikipedia administrator typically follows a specific process. Here is an overview of the typical steps involved:
Be a good user,Good bye . Karanth1234 ( talk) 17:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@ RegentsPark The following are some of the most common rationales for blocks. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review. Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future (see Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers). Karanth1234 ( talk) 07:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Karanth1234 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This block is not necessary to prevent vandalism as I have read 3 R policy of Wikipedia.I didn’t gave citations for list of people page by mistake as I was unaware of citation to be given to list of people.(I have read the policy) I had edited https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gaud_Saraswat_Brahmins but forgot to give reference.I have understood that the page which I had edited at last was priorly vandalised and edit warred by many people from past 5 years.Incase if I edit I will be more sensitive while editing those pages.I am not sock this one is clear from my end ,Incase if you find any sock tendency in the near future you can ban me from Wikipedia. Contributions:I can contribute on History of Karnataka and south Asian communities mainly on west coast of coastal Indian I will be much sensitive while editing any pages which has been edit warred by socks prior to this.
Decline reason:
I appreciate your manners and humility, but this is, as you were reminded several unblock requests ago, chiefly a sockpuppetry block, and one that a checkuser has said publicly here comes with very strong evidence (which, to be fair, I cannot review myself as I do not have access to that tool, but I have no reason to doubt their assessment) which would need to be refuted with a lot more than "I am not a sock" (because of course if that worked to get socks unblocked, everyone would do it, and thus our sockpuppetry policy would be toothless). — Daniel Case ( talk) 10:03, 2 January 2024 (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.
Karanth1234 ( talk) 03:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@ JJMC89Thank you man,This was really helpful.I didn’t knew the way of appealing block.I was in angry for categorising me as a sock even I am not involved in any such activities. Karanth1234 ( talk) 03:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Hello, Karanth1234, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Gramanya does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ekdalian ( talk) 17:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
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) 17:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@ RegentsPark@ User:FylindfotberserkI am not a puppet account at all.I have given all my details on the page.Please revisit this conclusion as the whole edit carried out was based on discussions.I know this caste edit section makes you to believe this as sock but I can defend myself!.I didn’t find any investigation here?! Karanth1234 ( talk) 13:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Karanth1234 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
See all my edits,IP address,All my discussion were constructive,Every edit was based on discussion with the respective user,Tried my level best to Neutralised the biased content.Based on what I got blocked that too as sock!.Request you to reinvestigate this.As I can observe anyone editing Marathi Brahmin or saraswat Brahmin page will be tagged as sock(Reference:Joshi punkar).This is not correct decision.Please revisit this.I can easily defend myself if investigated. Karanth1234 ( talk) 14:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I too find it very difficult to believe that you aren't a sock- but yes, others who do the exact same thing as blocked editors will be blocked themselves, see meat puppetry. 331dot ( talk) 09:36, 28 December 2023 (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.
@ Spinster300I saw your recent reply.Somehow there is some misunderstanding going on here.After Unblock I’ll join the editing process. Many alternate reference are there for that instance.
First Journal about cases and second about Gagabhatt.This reference too can be considered instead of second if you want.
Sarkar, J. (1948). House of Shivaji: (Studies and Documents of Maratha History: Royal Period). India: S.C. Sarkar.page 197.
For that journal shortly I’ll provide the complete reference.Have a nice day. Karanth1234 ( talk) 05:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Revisit Upudi census, Madhwacharya details. Shenvi and Gaud saraswat different or same(Luke and Jonathansammy) Gramanya(Luke and ekdalian) Current issue of caste census of Karnataka.(Page Karnataka). Karanth1234 ( talk) 05:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@ EkdalianI request you not to revert my edits.Just see my request to reconsider the block !,Doubting about sock is their work that doesn’t mean that I am sock here.I will defend this . Karanth1234 ( talk) 08:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Karanth1234 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
watchout all my edits and IP address.All my discussion were constructive,Every edit was based on discussion with the respective user.I tried my level best to neutralise the biased content by discussion.Maximum edit of mine was <citation needed> based on what I got blocked that too as sock!.Request you to reinvestigate this.As I can observe anyone editing few pages will be tagged as sock this should not be a reason and is not a correct decision.Please revisit this,I can easily defend myself if investigated but no investigation was carried out instead it is unilateral decision.Hope atleast Wikipedia should support democratic way of investigation. Karanth1234 ( talk) 14:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Technical and behavioural evidence convincingly connect this account to Madhwahari, at the very least. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 13:33, 28 December 2023 (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.
Per WP:BLANKING you may not remove declined appeals for a site wide block until the block is removed. 331dot ( talk) 10:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@ BlablubbsNow who is this madhwahari ?Till now they were telling some other name called josh punkar!.Common man Atleast previous admin told me to abstain from few page editing so that I’ll be unblocked(I questioned the condition as I didn’t edited any page ).What’s happening in Wikipedia! Karanth1234 ( talk) 13:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Karanth1234 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Without any problem from my end I had been blocked,
Karanth1234 ( talk) 15:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
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
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:04, 29 December 2023 (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.
Being blocked by a Wikipedia administrator typically follows a specific process. Here is an overview of the typical steps involved:
Did anyone followed this Atleast warning ?No chance just I got doubt and block.
Karanth1234 ( talk) 04:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@ RegentsPark Being blocked by a Wikipedia administrator typically follows a specific process. Here is an overview of the typical steps involved:
Be a good user,Good bye . Karanth1234 ( talk) 17:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@ RegentsPark The following are some of the most common rationales for blocks. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review. Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future (see Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers). Karanth1234 ( talk) 07:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Karanth1234 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
This block is not necessary to prevent vandalism as I have read 3 R policy of Wikipedia.I didn’t gave citations for list of people page by mistake as I was unaware of citation to be given to list of people.(I have read the policy) I had edited https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gaud_Saraswat_Brahmins but forgot to give reference.I have understood that the page which I had edited at last was priorly vandalised and edit warred by many people from past 5 years.Incase if I edit I will be more sensitive while editing those pages.I am not sock this one is clear from my end ,Incase if you find any sock tendency in the near future you can ban me from Wikipedia. Contributions:I can contribute on History of Karnataka and south Asian communities mainly on west coast of coastal Indian I will be much sensitive while editing any pages which has been edit warred by socks prior to this.
Decline reason:
I appreciate your manners and humility, but this is, as you were reminded several unblock requests ago, chiefly a sockpuppetry block, and one that a checkuser has said publicly here comes with very strong evidence (which, to be fair, I cannot review myself as I do not have access to that tool, but I have no reason to doubt their assessment) which would need to be refuted with a lot more than "I am not a sock" (because of course if that worked to get socks unblocked, everyone would do it, and thus our sockpuppetry policy would be toothless). — Daniel Case ( talk) 10:03, 2 January 2024 (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.
Karanth1234 ( talk) 03:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@ JJMC89Thank you man,This was really helpful.I didn’t knew the way of appealing block.I was in angry for categorising me as a sock even I am not involved in any such activities. Karanth1234 ( talk) 03:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.