User talk:Shinjoya

Shinjoya, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Shinjoya! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Burushaski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Singular (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 19[edit]

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

Pran filmography (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dasi, Daman, Arsi, Ragini and Sangeeta

Rehman (actor) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Chingari, Chand and Paras

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Sam Sailor 07:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 27[edit]

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

Amrish Puri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ricky and Waris

Kirat Singh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rana

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

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) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Rajput. 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 lose their editing privileges on that page. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput is covered by sanctions under WP:ARBIPA[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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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.

Hello Shinjoya. Caste articles have been the target of disruptive editing in the past. We even have a concept called 'Caste boosterism' to describe a kind of behavior that is often seen with caste articles. Please ensure that your editing is neutral, not promotional, and that your changes have consensus. Admins have the authority to intervene when problems occur in this area. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, I would like to respond that I am pretty aware of the sanctions related to caste articles. My editing has been neutral so far. How does adding a few images of forts in the appropriate section be considered promotional? My discussion is already going on at Talk:Rajput and so far, I haven't got any valid arguments. Just because a user removed the images without discussion a few months back, how does it mean that they cannot be added in the future? If any such discussion took place in the past, I am not aware of them. I have been continuously asking Heba Aisha to present the old discussions on this topic, but she hasn't presented any so far. Shinjoya (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its on talk page itself, if some of them got archived, I would like to request Kautilya3, to post the link of long discussion we underwent there. Heba Aisha (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't participated in any dicussion of fort images before. So I don't know where they might be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over this weekend, I have been looking at your edits of the Rajput article as well as your past edit history on Rajput related pages. You have attempted removals in the past on diet, alcohol etc. and other editors have reinstated your removed of sourced content.LukeEmily (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LukeEmily, For editors like us, Wikipedia is meant for editing. We add and remove content on articles considering its relevance and reliability of sources. Thats how we have grown to a healthy encyclopaedia with 6.3 million articles. Currently, some issues are being discussed at Talk:Rajput. You may join the discussions. Shinjoya (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the principal author of the FA India, the sole author of its history section and co-author with @Sitush: of two caste articles Jat people (also former pastoralists or other non-elite groups) whose antecedents of caste upliftment are similar if many centuries later than the Rajput's) and Kurmi I can state with a high degree of certainty that user:Shinjoya's edits are not only in the realm of caste boosterism, but also of a piece with the narrative of Hindu chauvinism because they promote only certain "castes," which are seen to be (i.e. have been reconstructed in false histories to be) the Hindu elite which was the bulwark against the ruling Islamic conquerors of India between 1200 CE and 1757 CE. This editor has also been ganging up with two others in a feeding frenzy of like-minded recent edits. I have made a post on Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Fowler&fowler, you are engaged with three users including me in a content dispute here. When you started losing debate, you began harrassing me with comments like this, this and this. Then, you did WP:HOUNDING and reverted my edits here. You also made false accusations on me for making POV edits without any due explanation. User:TrangaBellam supported your stance in the said content dispute but none of us accused you two of doing meat puppetry. Then, on what basis do you make false accusations on us? It was you who made objectionable remark on Rajasthan and its people and you also "praised" cavalry of Muslim forces here and here. Then on what basis, are you accusing me of POV editing?

You are an experienced writer. If you are not satisfied with the ongoing debate on content dispute, you always have other options like WP:Dispute resolution. Such misbehaviour towards other editors who don't disagree with you is simply uncalled for and not in line with WP:CIVILITY. Shinjoya (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you know about the sanctions, without an official alert, normally yearly, they cannot be applied to you. Which is why I have a list of sanctions that I am officially aware of at the top of my talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for your fine expansion of List of Rajputs Ratnahastin (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ratnahastin!

-Shinjoya (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Heba Aisha. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rajput have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. This edit also removed sourced content [1] Heba Aisha (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please build consensus on talk page. Heba Aisha (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you edited the article on Khap without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your email[edit]

Hi Shinjoya, you emailed me requesting indefinite protection of Maratha (caste). Indefinite protection is reserved for the most vandalized pages and only when other methods have not been effective. This is not the case at the Maratha article. In the three days since protection expired on June 11, there have been two edits by an IP. The first changed a link and the second was a self-revert three minutes later. This is not enough to justify protection of any length, let alone indefinite protection. Also, for the sake of transparency, please make routine protection requests on-wiki. If there are sensitive or private matters you need to discuss, then email is fine, but I and most other administrators prefer public discussion whenever possible. — Wug·a·po·des 22:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you had mentioned on your talk page that you are a bit busy and won't be able to attend talk page, I mailed you. I hope you didn't mind. I will wait and see if IP vandalism doesn't start again at Maratha (caste). Anyway, Thanks for responding. Shinjoya (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI close: topic ban[edit]

I have closed the ANI discussion concerning you as consensus in favor of a community-imposed indefinite topic ban from caste-related topics, broadly construed. This ban can only be appealed to the Wikipedia community at WP:AN; you can appeal the ban by opening a request there. As a nontrivial number of editors in the discussion favored a 90-day ban, I would recommend waiting at least 90 days before appealing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Run n Fly. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to ZyCoV-D have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please do not add WP:PROMOTIONAL statements as you did. Run n Fly (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a violation of WP:PROMOTIONAL . You aren't supposed to remove the content as it is relevant and backed by RS. Shinjoya (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page to discuss your edits.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When someone edits the page on ZyCoV-D, they get a warning message.[2], which reads in part: You prohibited from adding biomedical content without WP:MEDRS-compliant sources in this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of discretionary sanctions concerning COVID-19[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 and edits about COVID-19. 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.

Your edits to ZyCoV-D are clearly covered by discretionary sanctions concerning COVID-19.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Run n Fly (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being a net negative to the encyclopedia. See [3].

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 19:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note in case the user appeals the block: I'll be away on vacation next week. Any admin who reviews this block, please just make the call; there's no need to consult me. Bishonen | tålk 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The user Run n Fly who reported me at ANI has now himself breached 3RR with some other user on the same ZyCoV-D page. Is it solely my responsibility to avoid battleground like scenario? I am not blaming him but the point is that WP:MEDRS is turning out to be confusing in context of Covid vaccine pages and policy makers should give clear instructions on how this policy can be properly applied in vaccine pages because there are discrepancies all around; blocking users won't help any cause. Though it wasn't necessary, but the blocking admin has also given reference to my TBAN dated 21 June before blocking me. I wish to clarify that I still maintain that it was an extremely wrong decision of admin Rosguill to TBAN me as a result of this Boomerang proposal because it was done without any evidence. So, please don't exploit my unfortunate past to block me from editing. Shinjoya (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Woooooooowwww. This is one for the ages.

Right off the bat you discuss ... someone else you were getting antagonistic with, pointing to misbehavior you had nothing to do with. Incredibly but perhaps predictably, this leads to you asking "Is it solely my responsibility to avoid battleground like scenario?"

Excuse while I pick my jawbone up and replace it. I would rather think that the answer to that question would be obvious to anyone who appears to have read the sentence "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation" but then maybe if you to ask this, you'll never understand and that alone justifies an indefinite block IMO.

But wait ... there's more.

If you find MEDRS confusing, the place to deal with that is at WT:MEDRS (this is pour encourager les autres, as I highly doubt you will ever be unblocked). "[B]locking users won't help any cause" ... well, maybe it helps the cause of those users who want to deal with their confusion over MEDRS as applied to COVID-19 vaccine articles in a civil and productive fashion.

And exactly for whom is it "not necessary" that the blocking admin mention your past topic ban? You? Certainly not myself or any admin reviewing this request, I can tell you that much. And it is again altogether unsurprising, though no less dismaying, that you end your request with ... a complaint that that topic ban was unjustified. I would say only that at this point it scarcely matters whether it was or not.

In a short paragraph strewn with diffs and links, you manage to demonstrate quite conclusively that not only do you not understand what you have done wrong, you do not even understand that you have to understand what you have done wrong. But, you want us to know, you have a keen understanding of how everyone else has wronged you. "It's an orangy sky / Alwaaaays, it's some other guy / It's just a broken lullaby ..."

Bishonen has said that she is on vacation other admins need not run any unblock by her; however, I don't think that will be necessary.

And let me warn you that, if you request unblock after this, it better be about yourself and not just a retread of this tired (Hey! Great pun! I didn't realize it until I wrote it!) old song that reads like Donald Trump's legal pleadings, or it is likely that you will lose access to this page and the audience it gives you for this kind of behavior. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2021 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to appeal for unblock. I assure that I will try my level best to be be away from any any controversy. Shinjoya (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not sufficient and not convincing. Yamla (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2022 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

I apologise for all the mistakes done in past. I would like to appeal my block as per WP:Standard offer with an assurance that I will stay away from any controversial topic. Shinjoya (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; the standard offer is not yet available to you. Please wait the full six months before applying. Yamla (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2022 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked on 10 July 2021. As its been 224 days since my block, I think I am eligible to be considered for unblock as per WP:Standard Offer. Therefore, I humbly request admins to unblock me. I promise that I will try my level best to play a constructive role in improving our encyclopedia. Shinjoya (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, 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. Yamla (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2022 (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.

Unblock discussion[edit]

I'm afraid I see no indication that you understand why you were blocked, what to do instead, or what constructive edits you would make. You cannot say, "Oh, time's up! Unblock me now under the standard offer!" You must address the many reasons for your block and the many concerns raised about your editing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Daniel Case is spot on with his earlier decline. I see no evidence of any improvement since then. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, a topic ban on COVID/any topic related to MEDRS to be added to the one on Caste is in order, should user manage an unblock. Please, @Shinjoya:, describe what areas you might constructively edit in, and what those constructive edits might be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ Deepfriedokra, I wish to create and edit articles related to different places (villages and towns) of India like I have done in past before getting blocked. Apart from this, I plan to make edits to my other areas of interest like Indian history, Indian domestic politics, international politics and cricket. I will also patrol the "recent changes" page and revert any visible vandalism from users. Shinjoya (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please describe how your previous edits were unconstructive and what you would do in similar circumstances. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra:, Earlier, I was involved in editing volatile topics like caste and covid. My editing style was too bold which lead me into edit wars with several other users. But from now on, I will edit with more patience and participate with fellow users in achieving consensus, before going ahead with edits. Shinjoya (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. @Bishonen: Endorse unblock. Please opine. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shinjoya, have you been doing anything to practice constructive editing and give examples of more patience while blocked from the English Wikipedia? Such as editing another language Wikipedia, and/or one of the Wikimedia sister projects? If you have, have you done it successfully, without getting in trouble? And if you have not, I think you should, before being unblocked here. I would suggest at least two months of editing another Wikimedia project, or several. Remember, you are only blocked on the English Wikipedia (as far as I know). Bishonen | tålk 16:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]