Hello, Sapah3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Asian people did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
A community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (
COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described
here.
-- OhKayeSierra ( talk) 04:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from
Brown Canadians, which you proposed for deletion. I've stated my reasons on
Talk:Brown Canadians. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}}
back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
Schazjmd
(talk)
16:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sapah3, thank you very much for your contributions. I'm a bit concerned about the frequency of your usage of "undo"/"revert", with detailed edit summaries instead of talk page discussion. Perhaps you could reconsider that approach. Thanks and best regards ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--
Night
fury
08:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear Sapah3, in response to your latest revision, where you state that the term desi applies strictly to Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis only, that is based on only sources 2 and 3. And source 2 is an opinion piece in a magazine targeted toward South Asians. If you look at source 1, Boy Culture: An Encyclopedia, it states that desi is a term that applies to South Asians living in the United States and UK. And it goes on to say that South Asians include Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Sri Lankans. Therefore, it makes sense that the term desi would apply to Sri Lankans living in the US/UK as well as the other three groups. In addition, while source 3, the Oxford Dictionary, states that desi is a term for Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary includes those three groups and also Sri Lankans. Here is the link: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/desi_1:
Just something to think about. Thanks. 174.140.115.206 ( talk) 03:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 174.140.115.206 ( talk) 03:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. So it sounds like you're saying India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are always considered "desi" and other South Asian nations like Sri Lanka or Nepal may or may not be considered "desi" depending on whom you ask. Do I have that right? Thank you for your objective and balanced response to my question. 174.140.115.206 ( talk) 01:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at British Asian shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You're both edit-warring. Stop. —
MarkH21
talk
03:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Sapah3 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Firstly, I was not made aware that there was an investigation against me. Secondly, AbsorbedLastage ( talk · contribs) is a new user and the first thing they did on Wikipedia was open up an investigation against me. I am very confused as to why a new editor on Wikipedia would create an account solely to open up an investigation against another registered user. The user claimed I made edits on Sri Lankan Malays. Where did I make those edits? What I find strange about all of this is that there have been new users (such as Cope375 ( talk · contribs) and MistyfelSR ( talk · contribs) who have tried to come after me in the past (this is the latest example). What I find disappointing in all of this is that I have made constructive edits to Wikipedia the entire time I have been here, yet I have been blocked. Blocked after a new user created an account, opened up an investigation against me, as the first thing they did, and didn't even have the decency to notify me of the investigation on my talk page. Sapah3 ( talk) 14:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is just an ad hominem rant. I agree that it seems a bit suspicious that a new user would open a case against you, but we're not here to talk about that. We're here to talk about the evidence posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sapah3. If you would like to address that, make another unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 07:11, 17 November 2020 (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.
Sapah3 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Firstly, AbsorbedLastage ( talk · contribs) appears to be engaging in sockpuppetry themselves. The reason I say that is because it makes no sense for a new user to open up an investigation against another user when they have made no edits to Wikipedia. It's clear that AbsorbedLastage ( talk · contribs) is another version of users, Cope375 ( talk · contribs) and MistyfelSR ( talk · contribs) - both of whom were blocked. Secondly, if you look at the edits made by the IP addresses that user listed, most of those edits (except for two edits I believe) are different to the edits made on my account. Yet that newly registered user accused me of WP:LOUTSOCK and WP:ILLEGIT. Please tell me how am I editing to mislead when my edits are completely different to the edits made on those IP addresses? Did the admin who blocked me, look at my edits and the edits made on those IP addresses? Secondly, none of the edits made on my account and the ones made by those IP addresses are problematic. What has happened is that a newly registered user has been stalking me for months and built up a case against me by correlating my edits on certain pages with edits made by IP addresses as a way to say that I am a threat to Wikipedia despite the fact that the edits aren't even the same. Blocking me indefinitely has only resulted in the loss of a genuine Wikipedia editor who has only contributed postively to this encylopedia. If you look through my edits you will see that I edit carefully and make good contributions to this encyclopedia. People have used the "thank you" function to thank me for the edits I have made. I read a lot of things and I like to share that knowledge by contributing to Wikipedia and I had new information to add from a book I read and I logged on only to find out that I was blocked. The disappointing thing in all of this is that newly registered user who appears to be the incarnation of two other blocked accounts and will contribute nothing to this encyclopedia has succeessfully blocked me. They've been trying to get me blocked for months and they finally did it even though my edits aren't even the same as the edits made on those IP addresses. ( Sapah3 ( talk) 10:27 am, Yesterday (UTC+0))
Decline reason:
When your unblock request is declined because instead of addressing the reasons for the block you attack another user (however legitimate you feel the attack to be), then it is not sensible to start a new unblock request with the same attack. Whatever grievance you have against another user for identifying you as someone who was abusing multiple accounts, you need to save that for the appropriate forum. The blocking admin is a CheckUser who has a tool that looks at various technical data - the data in your case has linked you with other accounts. The other accounts have been blocked, and your account has been blocked. Your account was originally blocked indefinitely, but that has been changed to just two weeks. After the two weeks have elapsed you will again be able to edit Wikipedia. But be aware that if you are caught using multiple accounts again, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. SilkTork ( talk) 11:43, 18 November 2020 (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.
@ SilkTork: a CheckUser wasn't used in the investigation. My account hasn't been linked with other accounts, the filer merely associated my account with IP addresses from Australia and the US and claimed I was a sockpuppet. The edits made on my account are not the same as the edits registered on those IP addresses. I haven't been using multiple accounts, I only have this account. Can you please tell me why I have been blocked? The edits on the IP addresses aren't the same as the edits on my accounts and I haven't committed anything that constitutes WP:LOUTSOCK or WP:ILLEGIT, yet I have been blocked. ( Sapah3 ( talk) 12:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC))
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
SilkTork (
talk)
12:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Hello, Sapah3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Asian people did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
A community discussion has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (
COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described
here.
-- OhKayeSierra ( talk) 04:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from
Brown Canadians, which you proposed for deletion. I've stated my reasons on
Talk:Brown Canadians. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}}
back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
Schazjmd
(talk)
16:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Sapah3, thank you very much for your contributions. I'm a bit concerned about the frequency of your usage of "undo"/"revert", with detailed edit summaries instead of talk page discussion. Perhaps you could reconsider that approach. Thanks and best regards ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--
Night
fury
08:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear Sapah3, in response to your latest revision, where you state that the term desi applies strictly to Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis only, that is based on only sources 2 and 3. And source 2 is an opinion piece in a magazine targeted toward South Asians. If you look at source 1, Boy Culture: An Encyclopedia, it states that desi is a term that applies to South Asians living in the United States and UK. And it goes on to say that South Asians include Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Sri Lankans. Therefore, it makes sense that the term desi would apply to Sri Lankans living in the US/UK as well as the other three groups. In addition, while source 3, the Oxford Dictionary, states that desi is a term for Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary includes those three groups and also Sri Lankans. Here is the link: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/desi_1:
Just something to think about. Thanks. 174.140.115.206 ( talk) 03:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC) 174.140.115.206 ( talk) 03:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. So it sounds like you're saying India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are always considered "desi" and other South Asian nations like Sri Lanka or Nepal may or may not be considered "desi" depending on whom you ask. Do I have that right? Thank you for your objective and balanced response to my question. 174.140.115.206 ( talk) 01:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at British Asian shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You're both edit-warring. Stop. —
MarkH21
talk
03:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Sapah3 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Firstly, I was not made aware that there was an investigation against me. Secondly, AbsorbedLastage ( talk · contribs) is a new user and the first thing they did on Wikipedia was open up an investigation against me. I am very confused as to why a new editor on Wikipedia would create an account solely to open up an investigation against another registered user. The user claimed I made edits on Sri Lankan Malays. Where did I make those edits? What I find strange about all of this is that there have been new users (such as Cope375 ( talk · contribs) and MistyfelSR ( talk · contribs) who have tried to come after me in the past (this is the latest example). What I find disappointing in all of this is that I have made constructive edits to Wikipedia the entire time I have been here, yet I have been blocked. Blocked after a new user created an account, opened up an investigation against me, as the first thing they did, and didn't even have the decency to notify me of the investigation on my talk page. Sapah3 ( talk) 14:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is just an ad hominem rant. I agree that it seems a bit suspicious that a new user would open a case against you, but we're not here to talk about that. We're here to talk about the evidence posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sapah3. If you would like to address that, make another unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 07:11, 17 November 2020 (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.
Sapah3 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Firstly, AbsorbedLastage ( talk · contribs) appears to be engaging in sockpuppetry themselves. The reason I say that is because it makes no sense for a new user to open up an investigation against another user when they have made no edits to Wikipedia. It's clear that AbsorbedLastage ( talk · contribs) is another version of users, Cope375 ( talk · contribs) and MistyfelSR ( talk · contribs) - both of whom were blocked. Secondly, if you look at the edits made by the IP addresses that user listed, most of those edits (except for two edits I believe) are different to the edits made on my account. Yet that newly registered user accused me of WP:LOUTSOCK and WP:ILLEGIT. Please tell me how am I editing to mislead when my edits are completely different to the edits made on those IP addresses? Did the admin who blocked me, look at my edits and the edits made on those IP addresses? Secondly, none of the edits made on my account and the ones made by those IP addresses are problematic. What has happened is that a newly registered user has been stalking me for months and built up a case against me by correlating my edits on certain pages with edits made by IP addresses as a way to say that I am a threat to Wikipedia despite the fact that the edits aren't even the same. Blocking me indefinitely has only resulted in the loss of a genuine Wikipedia editor who has only contributed postively to this encylopedia. If you look through my edits you will see that I edit carefully and make good contributions to this encyclopedia. People have used the "thank you" function to thank me for the edits I have made. I read a lot of things and I like to share that knowledge by contributing to Wikipedia and I had new information to add from a book I read and I logged on only to find out that I was blocked. The disappointing thing in all of this is that newly registered user who appears to be the incarnation of two other blocked accounts and will contribute nothing to this encyclopedia has succeessfully blocked me. They've been trying to get me blocked for months and they finally did it even though my edits aren't even the same as the edits made on those IP addresses. ( Sapah3 ( talk) 10:27 am, Yesterday (UTC+0))
Decline reason:
When your unblock request is declined because instead of addressing the reasons for the block you attack another user (however legitimate you feel the attack to be), then it is not sensible to start a new unblock request with the same attack. Whatever grievance you have against another user for identifying you as someone who was abusing multiple accounts, you need to save that for the appropriate forum. The blocking admin is a CheckUser who has a tool that looks at various technical data - the data in your case has linked you with other accounts. The other accounts have been blocked, and your account has been blocked. Your account was originally blocked indefinitely, but that has been changed to just two weeks. After the two weeks have elapsed you will again be able to edit Wikipedia. But be aware that if you are caught using multiple accounts again, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. SilkTork ( talk) 11:43, 18 November 2020 (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.
@ SilkTork: a CheckUser wasn't used in the investigation. My account hasn't been linked with other accounts, the filer merely associated my account with IP addresses from Australia and the US and claimed I was a sockpuppet. The edits made on my account are not the same as the edits registered on those IP addresses. I haven't been using multiple accounts, I only have this account. Can you please tell me why I have been blocked? The edits on the IP addresses aren't the same as the edits on my accounts and I haven't committed anything that constitutes WP:LOUTSOCK or WP:ILLEGIT, yet I have been blocked. ( Sapah3 ( talk) 12:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC))
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
SilkTork (
talk)
12:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)