User talk:Highpeaks35/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For continued contributions on History of India. GenuineArt (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

An article you recently created,

An article you recently created,

An article you recently created,

I was planning to develop it in the next few weeks. However, for now having these articles created for the reader, with links to the developed Dutch section -- was an easy Google translate away -- to get the info on those notable areas of Amsterdam. But, yes, I will have it developed in the next few weeks. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC))

OK, that's fantastic to hear. Perhaps I could urge you to consider doing all the basic development of future article either as a draft or in your own sandbox? That way you won't get the frustration and annoyance of having your work deleted or criticised by other edits before it at least resemblance an encyclopaedia article. You may already know that you can create any number of sandbox pages and work on each without other editors getting in the way. These articles really do need the basics to be there once they're in mainspace, even if you subsequently come back and enhance them further. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jackson Heights, Queens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. United States is on my watch list. I noticed your recent three edits there, I reverted these edits for the following reason. First edit: if you read the entire paragraph, you will see that the main thrust is the expansion through the intercontinental railroad, not clipper ships. The consequent pressure om Native Americans and expropriation of their hunting grounds is primary to the short period of clipper ship domination of travel to the American West.

Second edit: adding CE for common era to a date in a section about development of the United States in the 18th and 19th centuries is completely unnecessary. The country is less than 250 years old.

Third edit: the previous image sizes were fine as they were.

The second and third edits are merely technical details. The first is a case of, I assume, not reading the entire paragraph. It might be possible to use the very fine image of the clipper and the gold miners in another article or location in this article.

Sorry to have accidently used the ordinary rollback rather than the AFG rollback. If you have any questions, please discuss on the article talk page. Neonorange (Phil) 20:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Highpeaks35; Please help me. This article created by me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pre-Lutheran_bibles_in_vernacular_languages was move to draftspace and says: "does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources."

But I include also the Andre Colin Gow links, the World Digital Library links, where is possible to see the dates of impression of teh Mentelin and Koberger Bibles.

Is the WDL not reliable?

There are similar articles about this same topic in other languages without any problem.

What could I do?

Greetings --Tuliopakardovas (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)tuliopakardovas.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Durga Malla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian independence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Highpeaks35. Regarding your revert [1]... the coin image you are insisting on in the "Persians and Greeks in northwest South Asia" paragraph is anachronistic by at least a century. It's a Taxila coin dated to circa 200 BCE [2], so it is very far removed from the Archaemenids or even Alexander the Great. Another image is necessary if any historical accuracy is expected in our illustrations... and there are plenty relevant ones. Also the caption is very disputable ("A coin of Takshashila, portrays a tree flanked by a hill surmounted by a crescent and a Hindu Nandipada above a swastika of Hindu iconography.") and not supported by the source [3]. Actually these symbols in that time and place, and on these coins are generally either considered Buddhist, or purely geographical/local. In doubt, better just leave it to a simple description... Also don't you think putting an image of ruins in West Bengal as an illustration of that same paragraph on the Greek and Persian conquests is a bit strange? The map is fine, if you wish to keep it. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: I changed it to this. Let me know if it is acceptable on your part. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC))

West Bengal, India is believed to be the capital of Gangaridai. The Gangaridai army, with its 4,000 elephant force, may have lead to Alexander's retreat from India.^[1]

Asia in 323 BCE, the Nanda Empire and the Gangaridai in relation to Alexander

's Empire and neighbours.

Hi Highpeaks35. It's better, but I think the two ruins side by side are awfully boring (and the ruins of Khana-Mihir really not relevant in a summary paragraph). How about some coinage actually showing Alexander in India fighting Porus? पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The coin was made in Babylon, kinda beyond the scope of the article. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC))

Pushkalavati coin

This Athens coin (Circa 500/490-485 BCE) was discovered in Pushkalavati in the Gandhara Satrapy. This coin is the earliest known example of its type to be found so far east and attests to wide-ranging currency circulation as far as India under the Achaemenids. Quite fitting for a paragraph entitled "Persians and Greeks in northwest South Asia". पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Gangaridai is more significant in the history of India and the Greek foray in India. As such, it is most appropriate. I don't understand how this coin impacted the history of India compared to Gangaridai. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC))

I thought we had agreed ("Your revert" discussion above) that your caption of the Takshila coin was very disputable ("A coin of Takshashila, portrays a tree flanked by a hill surmounted by a crescent and a Hindu Nandipada above a swastika of Hindu iconography.") and not supported by the source [4]. Actually these symbols in that time and place, and on these coins are generally either considered Buddhist, or purely geographical/local. You agreed to remove it from History of India, but it turns out you added again exactly the same false information in the Mahajanapadas article two days later [5]. I'll assume it's just a good-faith mistake, and let you correct yourself. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I changed it. Let me know if that works. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC))

Hi Highpeaks35. I suggest we even drop the "Buddhist" interpretation for the moment, and leave it to a simple description of the symbols, just as your source does. I'll see if I can dig up more definite sources on this precise subject. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. You are correct. I have removed it as well. Thanks! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC))

"Ancient" on every subheading was pretty unnecessary[6] as it was observed by other long term editor of the article.[7] I think it is better to have it removed again.

Hi, I invite you to join the Indian military history task force, an initiative of the Military history WikiProject. This task force is created to deal exclusively with the topics related to Indian military. If you are interested, please add you name in alphabetical order to the participants list. In addition, you can also indicate areas of special interest across your name. Please free to ping me if you have further questions. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khas people, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rana and Rawat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! It's actually the work of a disruptive sock-puppet, not just a regular editor adding unreferenced content possibly in good faith. DMacks (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Why did you undo my copyedits and improvements to kabaddi? ViperSnake151  Talk  06:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Highpeaks35. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

We cannot just claim that "look at the Bindi". We need to base ourselves on either the image description or cited sources. Your claim is

@RichardWeiss: The title of the image says it all. Ganja Smoking - Gangasagar Fair. Gangasagar Fair is a Hindu festival. How is that WP:OR? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC))

And where is your evidence only Hindus attend Hindu festivals? Stop jumping to conclusions. You are labelling someone a Hindu based on assumptions, he is likely a living person, see

WP:BLP. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs

08:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, we don't always know every SOCK who's editing. For what it's worth, I blocked them for violating 3RR just before they got the longer block for evasion. -- ferret (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@

jingoistic, as such, I and other editors removed the addition. But, it was my mistake not waiting for admins. Again, apologies on my end as well. Thanks again! (Highpeaks35 (talk

) 18:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC))

Hi Highpeaks35, I see that you put your signature in brackets. It is not common practice, and it is confusing when we try to make sense of who is saying what. Would you like to change to another form of signature. For instance, "--" is quite common. Cheers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read

Malik Shabazz is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not mean to edit war at all. But restoring the previous content means red links and overlinking. You can change specific content can't you? Thank you.--102.162.96.23 (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue of overlinking was raised in the talk page. My aim was to make the first para more concise as a summary, such as the first para in the History of India.--102.162.96.23 (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It'sup to you what you do with your talkpage, but trimming it may be seen as a sign that you're inclined to ignore warnings and good advice. Again, it's up to you, but just that you know. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 protected Indus Valley Civilisation for a week, after you were reverted multiple times by multiple editors. When the protection expired, you came back, reverting again. Your edit-summary Per User:Bbb23 comment, undid the unjust rollback by User:AshLin. Removed mainly unreferenced content, most since 2016, added a reference, and fixed spelling. misses the point here. You may be rigth about unreferenced content etc., but the page was protected because of your edits. I told you before: you're the one who will get blocked, or topic-banned, or whatever; not F&f or Ashlin. Just calm down, take your time, and discuss at the talkpage. Just take care, and don't let raw emotions steer your actions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, What did I edit here that was contentious? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC))

Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs), I have zero issue discussing in talk. However, there is almost near certainty FF will get involved just for trolling sake. It might be an alien concept for you, but I have to deal with lots of racism living where I live, last thing I need in my life is to deal with a racist POV pusher in Wiki bullying me further. Again, I would appreciate you inform me what was wrong with the above edit. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC))

It's not about content, it's about behavior, as explained above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs), what wikipolicy allows unsourced material be put back as you did for that excuse? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC))

(talk page stalker)@Highpeaks35: Please be advised that continuous, unsubstantiated, accusations of racism which is attributed to me, constitute violation of Wikipedia policy. You know very well, that I had applied the term "Hindu garbage" to images you had uploaded on the Talk:India page, which had specifically and redundantly mentioned "Hindu," especially in the context of attire or apparel that had been introduced by Muslims into India. On that page, there was mention of the Hindu religious decoration of bindi; there was irrelevant, and unsubstantiated, discourse on the bare midriff in a photo caption. More troubling were two specific, entirely irrelevant, mentions of "Hindu wedding" in photographs that showed Muslim attire. Please see all of them here. Please examine them carefully. I have been a consistent and prolific contributor to the India page for upward of 12 years. I have played a major part in the article retaining in FA status for that period. However, I am also aware of the mischief wrought on that page in edits that promote the Hindu- or Hindu-nationalist POV. It was only in that context that I had used the expression "Hindu garbage." It meant the promotion of irrelevant Hindu attribution in the captions of images you had uploaded on the Talk:India page. This was especially troubling as the attire was introduced by Muslims into India. Allow me to politely and firmly suggest that you not keep repeating these racism allegations. Whether or not you experience racism in your real life is a separate issue, but please don't repeat this grossly inaccurate characterization of me. Please don't say later that you were not warned. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• I fully protected the article on January 21 for one week because of edit-warring by the following editors: Highpeaks35, AshLin, Fowler&fowler, and Joshua Jonathan. I don't want to play a counting game about who reverted the most times. I don't want to resolve the content dispute. Your job (collectively) is to resolve the dispute on the Talk page or, failing that, in another suitable forum. That means, though, that Highpeaks35's revert (restore of their version) was out of line, and Joshua Jonathan's revert of it was also out of line. I'm going to let it go, but the next editor (warned clearly now) who was involved the edit war who reverts at the article risks being blocked. As an aside, Highpeaks35, my comment at ANI about AshLin's misuse of rollback did not entitle you to revert their edit. And your self-justifying, misleading edit summary only made your revert that much worse.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
• Highpeaks, this edit summary is a personal attack unless backed up by evidence. Please don't say stuff like that again. On the other hand, I'm not sure why you removed that talk page comment; a section about the politics of the IVC isn't an unreasonable idea, whether it gains consensus or not. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Highpeaks35, these are my personal views, but I am telling them to you in the hope that they might make it easier for you to deal with this topic. If you look at things dispassionately, it is fairly clear that the IVC was a "Pakistani civilisation" rather than an "Indian civilisation". The IVC people were more interested in their connections to West Asia and Central Asia than the subcontinent they were part of. They probably spoke Indian languages and followed Indian religions. But that did not bring them any closer to the rest of Indians. They were more interested in trading with Mesopotamian than with South India for example. It is likely that the rest of India was tribal and primitive, but there were also well-developed megalithic cultures there. Moreover, nothing stopped the IVC people from travelling down the coastlines and setting up colonies. They weren't apparently interested in any of this. As a result, when their civilisation died, there was no legacy, no heritage. They were simply forgotten. It was as if they had never existed. It was left to the Vedic Aryans to pick up whatever they could from the remnants of the IVC and propagate it to the rest of India.

The Sarasvati river is a red herring. It was probably flowing all the way to the sea, or at least close enough to the Indus river. It was part of the same river complex. So it was natural for the IVC people to trek up the Sarasvati and establish colonies in Rajasthan which was rich in minerals that they needed. But they didn't explore any further. India had hundreds of rivers, but they didn't interest the IVC people. The Sarasvati is a fringe river for India. It is not the centre of anything. The IVC spreading to Sarasvati was of no consequence to India. When Sarasvati dried up, even those connections were lost.

So I don't see why Indians want to keep beating the drum of the IVC. It is far more natural to accept it as the origins of "Pakistan". Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you can’t be serious? Even Pakistanis don’t consider non-Islamic IVC as part of Pakistani Civilization. Pakistani nationalism in general is based on history after the birth of Islam, and they rarely consider pre-Islamic history worthwhile; as most Pakistani nationalist see it as “dark period”. Indian claim to the IVC comes due to their opposition of the Two-Nation theory and vast majority of the sites are found in these two countries. Plus, though early, DNA studies are showing the IVC peoples did not just move outside the subcontinent or disappeared, they just mixed in with the new male dominated Aryans or moved southward. Just as Berbers did in N. Africa against Arab migrants, Iranic tribes in Central Asia with Turkic migrants, or Mesoamericans did with Iberian migrants. Their DNA or culture did not completely disappear, just absorbed or superseded by the newer migrants. This is how human history works, it is in layers. Indian nationalism celebrates these layers and migrants that were absorbed in; from the Harappans, Aryans, Sakas, to even the Mughals, everyone who called the Indian subcontinent their home. That pluralism is not part of the uniformed Islamic (Sunni based) Pakistani nationalism. Again, this is my take. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC))

Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs), based on the above opinions, which do you think is valid and which do you think is invalid? Based on what was provided by me and K3. Will love to hear your opinion as a neutral editor, and assuming you are someone who is non-Indian origin. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC))

I am not interested in any "Pakistani nationalists", whoever they are supposed to be. I am talking about proper historians of Pakistan, such as:

• Dani, Ahmad Hasan (1967), A Short History of Pakistan: Pre-Muslim period, University of Karachi

They certainly regard IVC as a proper part of Pakistan's history. Now, the relentless Indian attacks claiming IVC to be "Indian" goes against the grain. They are also pretty silly because there are no known connections between the IVC and what we call "India". Was there any part of India (other than the Sarasvati vally) with which the IVC traded even a tiny fraction of what they were trading with Mesopotamia? Were there any IVC ships seen anywhere in India? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, the population density in India, especially combined with Indian climate, does not allow anything to survive for long. Ships or evidence of trade would not survive much for 5,000 years in a climate like South India in comparison to a dry or drier climate like Central Asia or West Asia. It is that simple. Heck, there are large hordes of Indian ivory material found in ancient Pompeii, than from the Deccan where much of it was produced. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC))

I was asking for IVC trade with India, not Pompeii. Without any such evidence, my theory stands. What more is there to say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Trade is only one aspect. Also, their trade with early Malwa culture and other cultures in and around GH is evident. They did not have the iron technology to clear the dense forests of the North Indian plains and south India. But, even in Gujarat and coastal Maharashtra we have now found their settlements, as such, anywhere they found resources or they had the tech to make settlements, they did. We have evidence for those, though early. I also pointed out, DNA evidence and migration. There is enough early evidence they mixed or migrated south in present day India. DNA, genetics and migration is as important or if not more than just trade. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC))

Kautilya3, also, to clarify, I used Pompeii as a non-connected example to show the importance of dry climate, and its ability to preserve artifacts and evidence in comparison to wet climate like much of India. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC))

Hi Highpeaks, I got your ping about a problematic IP user. But you can also be an "experienced user". Turn on Twinkle in your user preferences, if you haven't yet done so. Then you can give warning messages to users when they make bad edits. Please add links to the edits (diffs) so that other people can review the problems. Editors will be sanctioned only if there is evidence of systematic abuse over a period of time. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, thank you so much! I did not even look at "Preferences" yet. Will look at it now. Thanks again for your help! (Highpeaks35 (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC))

I would also advise you to give welcome messages to new users (again via Twinkle), instead of warning messages. That has the effect of breaking them into Wikipedia policies gently, instead of a scary-looking warning which might generate hostility rather than cooperation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

hi, thanks for leaving me a msg and your suggestion, i think that, for me presently it will be difficult to expand on history of domes in india simply because i have only one source on pre islamic indian domes which would be kausambi palace, so that article too would be made into indo islamic dome history in india by default, i think that examples like kafir kot, gumbatona and even some srilankan domes will be left out if we convert the article into indo islamic dome topic and make separate topic only for the indian domes. Hammy0007 (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

domes article. Also, according to medieval India article, all countries in the Indian subcontinent can be added to "India", if it is about medieval Indian period. So, you can add Kafir Kot, Gumbatona and even some Sri Lankan domes, if it is about the medieval period, not modern. (Highpeaks35 (talk

) 02:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

interesting, yeah i have already added them in the dome topic, i can add more based on recent additions on SA dome article. your suggestion does make sense now. Hammy0007 (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this proposal is for the best. I am hoping history of domes in South Asia becomes History of Indo-Islamic domes. Again, thanks for all your work. I learned so much from you. Did not know domes existed in pre-Islamic India. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

thanks, much appreciated. Hammy0007 (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

yeah please create Palace of Kausambi article, i'll try to add on it, i have upcoming exams so a little busy, can i leave you with the sources so that you can expand on it, thanks for creating the article. Hammy0007 (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, send me the sources. I will create it. Also, will expand

history of domes in India. (Highpeaks35 (talk

) 04:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

here you go its on page 50 INDIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 1961-62-A REVIEW, page 50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammy0007 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

History of domes in the Indian subcontinent (if the domes are mainly present in India proper, as well as Bangladesh and the Punjab & Sindh regions of Pakistan) or History of domes in South Asia (if the article also discusses the presence of domes in Afghanistan and Balochistan). If you'd like me to add this comment on the talk page, I can do that. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk

05:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

history of domes in India, I will appreciate it. (Highpeaks35 (talk

) 00:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC))

I wrote Ravindra Dave and is currently nominated for DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Ravindra Dave). I am not native speaker of English so I may have made grammatical mistakes in the article. The DYK reviewer has asked for copyediting. Would you like to copyedit it? Regards,-Nizil (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nizil Shah, yes, I will look into it. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC))

As you must have observed, in my earlier response to complaints about your behavior, I tried to take the high-road, not entrap anyone in technical violations, and even tried to mediate to refocus attention of content and sources. So I find comments such as this and this most disappointing. Please stop. Abecedare (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kap He Chom Khrueang Khao Wan. Since you had some involvement with the Kap He Chom Khrueang Khao Wan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Paul_012 (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinitely

topic-banned from edits and pages related to India

, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for

battleground-conduct that you have been warned about numerous times earlier

, and as explained below

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

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. Abecedare (talk

) 18:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Administrator note This action was precipitated by this recent edit, which repeated all the problems of an earlier mass-reversion, which I had spelled-out in this comment on the article talkpage. Obviously the entreaties and warnings are not having the desired affect, and as discussed on my talkpage and made plain to you, a narrower remedy than a topic-ban may not be workable. Abecedare (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPA. You used that as one of the reason above for the topic ban, while excusing Fowler, which reeks of bias. I don’t have time for argue with a bias admin trying to defend his friend as seen here. While disparaging me above. I am truly disappointed by the bias and unethical nature of your admin here. If you are neutral, both should have given the Tban or at least a warning to Fowler. I don’t have time to argue with you. Will take a break for couple of months and hopefully the ARB committee will look into this matter. Cheers! (Highpeaks35 (talk

) 19:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC))

Highpeaks, you are welcome to appeal the topic-ban to AE, AN, or ARCA as outlined

here. Let me know if you have any questions about the scope of the ban, or technical aspects of the appeals process. Abecedare (talk

) 19:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Moustache Hostel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by