User talk:Merkcid

Welcome everyone. Be nice! ^^

Merkcid, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Merkcid! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Vanniyar

Hi, I have just reverted your recent changes to the Vanniyar article. I understand the point that you are trying to make but does the source that we cite actually say this? I did borrow the thing from the library some time ago and feel sure that I would have added that additional information if it was present. I will leave a note at Talk:Vanniyar just in case someone else can verify the information. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Your addition to Vanniyar has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Given recent events involving Premthanjavur and the coincidence of their edits, yours and those of an anonymous account, I think it best to advise you that wide-ranging sanctions are enforceable on articles relating to castes etc. While the immediate issue involving your last edit was that of copyright violation, as explained in the above notice, it also seems possible that you are attempting to "push" an opinion contrary to our policy regarding neutrality, which itself relies on such concepts as verifiablity, reliability of sources and consensus.

I am not an administrator but please do heed the information below. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi, The previous edit wars by yourself and those people does seem to focus on that particular paragraph, which I'm inclined to note is not adhering to the substance of the reference. Rudolph clearly notes in that paragraph vanniyars who were an agricultural caste had simply ceased to accept their status rather than just contesting it, and claiming by descent they are not a low caste. Not only is that neutral, its also in-tune with the implied meaning of that reference. I'm not sure why such a simple thing is such an issue. If we are talking about , that sentence does not mimic the book, word by word. If required, I can change it further, to put forward the implied meaning without mimicking the book. Merkcid (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It damn well copied the book word-for-word. You said as early as in 1833, the Vanniyar, who were then known as Pallis, had ceased to accept their status as an agricultural caste and tried to procure a decree in Pondicherry that by descent they were not a low caste. The book says As early as 1833, the Pallis, as they were then called, had ceased to accept their status as a humble agricultural caste and tried to procure a decree in Pondicherry that they were not a low caste. If you cannot see that you have copied the source directly then you really shouldn't be editing that article because you would appear to have severe comprehension issues. You are still adding copyright-violating phrases in your latest pointless effort, although they are less severe. Just leave it alone, please: you seem to be trying to split some sort of non-existent hair - if they contested the traditional status then by definition they didn't agree with it, and we don't need to breach copyright to make that point. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

In addition, I find it very odd that you suddenly appear again after several months of inactivity, just as Premthanjavur is setting off on another wave of opinionated contributions. Do you know them? Have they perhaps talked to you about this? - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Not even one full sentence has been reproduced word-by-word, with only part of it bearing resemblance. But all that doesn't matter now anyway because even that has been changed in the latest iteration.

You can very well ask wiki admins to check IPs of that user to myself to your hearts content to remove any doubts, please. Edit wars usually wake people up, myself included.

What I do find odd is the fact that a simple issue, is subject to a vociferous edit war is almost incomprehensible Merkcid (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"in 1833, the Vanniyar, who were then known as Pallis, had ceased to accept their then status and tried to get an order in Pondicherry that by descent they were not a low agricultural caste" this sentence seems to be misleading. many references clearly state that the vanniyar are lowly placed agricultural laborers.

https://books.google.com/books?ei=VzKLVa-tO8njoATs8pCQAg&id=wG3aAAAAMAAJ&dq=vanniyar+low+caste&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=hierarchy Social and Economic Dimensions of Caste Organisations in South Indian States Dr. R. Balasubramanian University of Madras, 2001 - Caste - 297 pages

https://books.google.com/books?id=qJZp5tDuY-gC&pg=PA184&dq=vanniyar+low+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VzKLVa-tO8njoATs8pCQAg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=vanniyar%20low%20caste&f=false India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India By Christophe Jaffrelot

Not sure what is wrong in earlier sentence. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Carefull review seems word by word copy Sangitha rani111 (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Careful review seems word by word copy of what? Merkcid (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Copy from the book word by word Sangitha rani111 (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Which book? And which sentence posted here has been copied word by word from that book? Merkcid (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India By Lloyd I. Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber Rudolph.. Read the thread carefully. All details have been explained. Its a word by word copy..Sangitha rani111 (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

I'm also asking, which sentence posted here is actually a word-by-word copy from the book? Merkcid (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to say " as early as in 1833, the Vanniyar, who were then known as Pallis, had ceased to accept their status as an agricultural caste and tried to procure a decree in Pondicherry that by descent they were not a low caste". Book says "As early as 1833, the Pallis, as they were then called, had ceased to accept their status as a humble agricultural caste and tried to procure a decree in Pondicherry that they were not a low caste". Merkcid you have made a exact copy.... Sangitha rani111 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Not even one full sentence has been replicated "word-by-word", but does convey what the reference has been pointing out all along. But even that doesn't matter anymore because the sentence has been changed to "Researcher Lloyd I. Rudolph notes that as early as in 1833, the Vanniyar, who were then known as Pallis, had ceased to accept their then status and tried to get an order in Pondicherry that by descent they were not a low agricultural caste." which is what was on the page before you reverted. You basically reverted citing an out of date version! Merkcid (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Plus the page clearly already mentions, "Traditionally most Vanniyars are agricultural labourers." Merkcid (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Well it is very clear you have copied. I would like to get some view of senior editors. Please Do not revert the page.. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

You first revert FALSELY STATING a sentence which was not even there! Now realizing your folly you are saying its copied, even-though its changed providing information form that reference. You are changing arguments midway to suit your POV, trying everything possible to put forth your likened POV. On top of that, you revert again! It is you who should stop reverting and wait for an opinion since it is you who is confused about all this. Merkcid (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Its very clear that you have made a word by word copy of the book. I am not interested in a edit war. I will request for neutral editor view points. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring subsequent to warning of discretionary sanctions, as you did at Vanniyar. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —SpacemanSpiff 18:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

NTS transportation

This section is regarding the NTS transportation edits and the discussion which the editors want/requested. Merkcid (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Topic banned

It is now clear that you are editing certain pages to proxy for a topic banned/blocked editor. Therefore, per community imposed discretionary sanctions, you are indefinitely banned from editing any content related to castes, communities, and any sort of social groups in any article or namespace on Wikipedia. Violation of this topic ban will result in escalating blocks. —SpacemanSpiff 19:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Every time the other editor gets blocked you have come to carry out the same edit to push a POV. You've been warned of this before as well as of sanctions, you've been asked to use the talk pages, and you've also been blocked for this disruption. If you can edit other areas of the encyclopaedia without any such disruption then you can appeal this ban in about six months. —SpacemanSpiff 03:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Everytime? This is outrageous. If you see the history you will know that user was editing my edit, not the other way around. A quick look at the history reveals, that the user was editing some other section of the page, The "Kadavas section", when he was banned the first time. I was editing completely another section "the historial section", and never even knew of the Kadavas section. Then he comes back and edited the section I was active in and got himself banned. I come back after a hiatus seeing an irrelevant inclusion in the section I was active in and removed it. How is this anyway making me a proxy? As for using the talk pages, I edited just once! There was never any edit war between myself and the other editor in the first place, and this particular edit was never in any discussions in the talk pages. Merkcid (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've said what I have to say, you've only been here pushing the same POV as the other blocked editor, nothing else on these pages. Whether you're a proxy or not, it's the same disruption you're causing. You are free to edit other areas of the encyclopaedia. —SpacemanSpiff 18:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all it was not a POV or a disruption. There is a difference between a POV and fact. The statement was pertaining to Lloyd, and inbetween a phrase was inserted from some other author without any reference to the new author, making it seem like Lloyd made that assertion. Its a clear cut case of poor editing and disruption(The irony). And precisely the reason why people are taking it out.

Again with the "same POV as the other blocked editor", when the other user was editing some other section of the article when he first got banned, which I wasn't even part of. Merkcid (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Your addition to Vanniyar has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Please note also that you should not even be editing that article because you are topic-banned. Sitush (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Join me on the article talk page.Merkcid (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

And please note that the topic ban was not even elaborated by the admin after repeated attempts to justify the Ban, and the Ban was made when rectifying an error no less, which I've been prove right by none other than you, and also under an far fetched assumption that I'm proxying. Merkcid (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating topic ban placed under WP:GS/Caste, as you did at Vanniyar. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —SpacemanSpiff 02:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The admin has repeatedly ignored the discussions on the Ban as evident above in my talk page. His premise for my Ban that I'm proxying and disrupting is invalid as I have pointed above in discussions. Merkcid (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You can "point it out" as much as you'd like, but until the imposing administrator or the community lifts the topic ban, it is still in place. You can read about protesting discretionary topic bans here. As you clearly breached the ban, and are likely to do so again, an unblock is a poor idea. Kuru (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2015 (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.

• To the reviewing admin This discussion is a precursor to the first block and topic ban. —SpacemanSpiff 03:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)