Welcome to Wikipedia, Dev0745! Thank you for your contributions. I am K6ka and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, - (Dev0745 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic-banned from all pages and discussions related to Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, including the associated protests

You have been sanctioned for continued POV, tendentious and disruptive editing in this topic-area, despite prior warnings.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. El_C 14:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  RegentsPark (comment) 22:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For this edit --RegentsPark (comment) 22:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:RegentsPark, Can you look about this[1] where the user User:Packer&Tracker calling me not worth of tying shoe laces. Is it not uncivil behaviour. Is it not personal attacks. When I warn her about it. She dismissed it as revenge warning. If she can get away with such things and no action can taken against her, why can't I do this. I was aware of the consciousness of such comments, But for me It is important to remind these user that only they can't abuse other. You have to also warn or block her if you think her behaviour is uncivil or she personally attacked me. If not, explain me why her comments not comes under uncivility or personal attack. Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well; here we go again, this user continue to harass me by pinging me again after being blocked for abusive ranting. Anyway, not worth of tying shoe laces is not a abuse, your understabding of English is sub-optimal. This means that you are nobody in comparison of such scholar (Romila Thapar) which is still true to call them so called great scholar; they indeed are, period. (same was done to Rima Hooja earlier where her scholarly representation citing finest epigrahphist, she herself is a top archeologist as absurd with personal commentary) (a counter of scholarly remark is with a scholarly work of same stature expliticly doing the same not adding personal prejudice);

I never went on with abuse and calling others castiest Brahamin/uncivilzed. Let alone personal attack this was a racist slur to call somebody castiest when they never done anything remotely close to it in past. Neither, I rant anyone to be a slave/servant of XYZ. (just because you admire them)

At last, though I am not bragging but my edit history (particularly in last 4 odd months); have been top notch in reverting vandals, unconstructive edits, help in achieving consensus at disputed articles. Unlike this user, who has been on razor's edge for sometime and is banned from some areas of enclyopedia and had been warned by another administraitor Doug Weller for the same. diff, diff, thrashing of a scholar by removing their work notoriously as they think it's not reliable by adding commentary (same issue that annoyed me to the core); diff.

Stop abusing other castiest and then call other uncivil. Pots and Kettles. Let the block expires and mend your ways to edit constructively. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking out of context to my comments. No evidence and original research (satire) comment was about opinion of your so called great scholar Irfan Habib as you have commented. And You got angry about it by misrepresenting comment and started abusing me and comparing me with Ropila Thapar. Better you campare yourself with Romila Thapar. I don't like to campare them with me. That comment was for Irfan Habib not for Romila Thapar.

Definitely banned from editing in "North East Delhi Riot" as I was putting neutral point of view by citing Indian news articles whereas other user were putting one sided narrative of western media, some Indian media who were only accusing Hindus of riots and whitewashing muslim of their crimes. I was banned as I was edit warring and not aware of Wikipedia policy. But I am proud of that as I succeeded in providing view point of Hindus before being banned from topic.

You are doing good works by reverting vandals. But as you said in you own language you are not braging. I am also in Wikipedia for more than four years and created around 90 Wikipedia articles. You have created 0 article if I am not braging . I am also reverting vandals. So better you talk after knowing basic things about in the matters, you going to comments. Dev0745 (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If as per you not worth of tying shoe laces is not a personal attack. Then I can say You are not worth of tying my shoe laces. Then I can say you are not worth of cleaning my toilet. Dev0745 (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:RegentsPark, I will not abuse any user in future. I know I abused the User:Packer&Tracker by calling her casteist as she behaved uncivilingly by calling me I am not worth of tying shoe laces of her i.e. Romila Thapar by taking my comment out of context. She commented quote of Irfan Habib that history can't be rewritten but only made up lies to suit prejudice, see[2]. I have commented about Opinion of so called great scholar Irfan Habib that his opinion have no evidences and original research satirly, see:[3], not of Romila Thapar. Then she commented I am not worth of tying shoe laces of her by misrepresenting by comments ,see[4]. Her comments is rude, see:Civility warnings. Then I warned her for uncivil comments but she removed all my comments by dismissing it as baseless and revenge warning see:[5]. So I called her Casteist as she had belittled shoe tying profession see:[6]. Casteist people are the people who discriminate people based on their caste i.e traditional profession and untouchability. As per her calling other not worth of tying shoe laces is not abuse, see[7]. But When I commented same things about Romila Thapar and her, see:[8]. It become defamation of Romila Thapar. It is double standard. When I called her that she not worth of cleaning toilet,see:[9]. It became abuse for her. When she called me not worth of tying shoe laces is not abuse but when I called her not worth of cleaning toilet is abuse for her. Can she explain why so. Then she reported it to Admin talk page, see:[10]. I think both are abuse but she has double standard. I abused her because she called me I am not worth of tying shoe laces of her i.e Romila Thapar. This user had been previously blocked for personal attack by you, see:[11]. Same behaviour she is repeating with me as I had never abused any user in last four years since I joined Wikipedia.

I think she made rude comments, see:Civility warnings. I have never abused any user in last four years, but rude comments with lack of responsibility infuriate me. Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short block and my suggestion is that you wait it out and, when you return, tone down the rhetoric. If you want an immediate unblock, please read guide to appealing blocks and formulate an unblock request (suggestion: a good unblock request does not mention other editors or build excuses for the reason for the block). --RegentsPark (comment) 14:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I abused her for her rude comment, unaccountability and it is not rhetoric. Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2022 (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).

Dev0745 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am here not requesting unblocking as I know I abused the User:Packer&Tracker by calling her casteist. But you have to look the comments of the user who behaved rudely by calling me not worth of tying shoe. It is not rude behaviour. Then warned her for uncivil comments but she removed all my comments by calling it baseless. She was not accountable for her rude behaviour. So I called Casteist as she had belittled profession related to shoe tying which have little respect in eye of casteist people. Casteist people are the people who discriminate people based on their caste i.e traditional profession. As per her calling someone not worth tie shoe is not uncivil or personal attack. Then what extent it will go by belittle other people by comparing them other low respected jobs in the eye of casteist people. Then they will say, you are not worth of cleaning toilet. Is it civility.

I request you to warn her for her rude comments.

Decline reason:

"I am here not requesting unblocking" so I didn't read any further. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:00, 20 August 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).

Dev0745 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I will not abuse any user in future. I know I abused the User:Packer&Tracker by calling her casteist as she behaved uncivilingly by calling me I am not worth of tying shoe laces of her i.e. Romila Thapar by taking my comment out context as I am commented about Opinion of Irfan Habib that his opinion have no evidences and original research satirly not of Romila Thapar. She commented quote of Irfan Habib that histry is not rewritten but interpreted according to prejudice and lies. Then she commentd I am not worth of tying shoe laces of her. Her comments is rude:Civility. Then I warned her for uncivil comments but she removed all my comments by dismissing it as baseless and revenge warning. So I called her Casteist as she had belittled shoe tying profession. Casteist people are the people who discriminate people based on their caste i.e traditional profession based on traditional untouchability. As per her calling someone not worth tie shoe is not uncivil or personal attack. Then what extent it will go by belittle other people by comparing them other low respected jobs. As per her calling other not worth of tying shoe laces is not personal attack. But When I commented same things that Romila Thapar and She not worth tying shoe of me, It become defamation of Romila Thapar and abuse for her. Then she reported in your talk page. It is double standards of her. When I called her that she not worth of cleaning toilet. It became abuse for her. Also not worth of cleaning toilet is abuse for her and not worth of tying shoe laces is not. Can she explain why one is. I think both are abuse but she has double standard. I abused her by calling casteist and calling she is not worth of cleaning toilet. But It is because she called me I am not worth of tying shoe laces of her i.e Romila Thapar.

I request you to warn her for her previous rude comments. Rude comments with lack of responsibility infuriate me. I will not abuse any user in future as I also never abused any user in last four years. If you think I am right, You can unblock me. Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not a place to exchange insults. There is a short block for an obvious problem and no reason for an unblock has been given. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 20 August 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.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is well sourced content. Can you explain why it is poorly sourced. Article of Indian express is already cited there. Why not article of Wire is poorly sourced. Why there is so much case mentioned about negative consequences of the law or arrest of inocent and not about postive outcomes or arrest of criminals. This is well known about how these Wire report only report negative news and don't report postive news. I have added report of cases which published in Indian Express and Deccan Chronicle. Don't remove it. Be neutral. Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously asking this? What you wrote and what the source says do not match.

Take for example the line you added, "In several cases women filed the case of kidnapping, coercion, rape and forceful conversion and accused were arrested" while the source itself states "In only two cases is the complainant the woman concerned herself." You turned what the article emphasised as "only two" into "several" and the rest is largely unverifiable. Then there's lines like, In several cases the accused kidnapped, coerced into relationship by giving false identity, raped and pressured to convert into another religion" where you have jumbled together a couple cases and stated the allegations as if they are facts which the article does not do.

More than anything your rendition promotes the conspiracy theory of love jihad while the source itself is skeptical. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also highly recommend that you go through WP:PROFRINGE. We are not here to strike a false balance in the name of neutrality. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you need to read WP:ONUS which states that "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Express and Deccan Chronicle mentioned around six case of forced conversion and one rape case where arrest happened. So I have mentioned about the case. Only around three cases court did not found them guilty. In other seven cases, whether arrested persons were found guilty or not not mentioned. I have only mentioned about filed complaint. Removed the name of accused as article didn't mention about conviction. Dev0745 (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, innocence is presumed without a conviction, as it stands they are all considered not guilty at present and the page is not supposed to be an indiscriminate list of cases where the law has been applied, only an overview based on secondary coverage. The articles don't mention that these crimes have happened rather that these allegations exist and the police has arrested people alleging that this is love jihad. On top of that you can not reproduce police statements and allegations as if they were facts. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dev0745: You were notified on 18 March 2022 regarding the WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions that apply for articles like Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020. That means only the best reliable sources should be used and disagreements should be calmly discussed at article talk. I have not examined the above or the recent edits but if there were evidence of an ongoing disregard for reliable sourcing or other disruptive editing, you would be topic banned. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, the unsourced template was probably not the best on my part for this case. The sources themselves are usable (although not best) but the main problem is that what they wrote while citing those sources, doesn't match the sources themselves. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits that do not agree with the source being given would be an example of "other disruptive editing" (very disruptive). Please let me know if you see examples of future edits of that nature. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]