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]

Why you are trying to turn Nagpuria people into a poorly written "History of India"-type article?[1]

You have been doing this since 2018 and you were told then too,[2][3] that your edits are not relevant to "Nagpuria people".

Why you keep adding them back? There is a talk page discussion where you never responded: Talk:Nagpuria_people#Focus.

Your text is either unsourced or irrelevant or misrepresents sources. Even your most recent addition to his page[4] is irrelevant because it is unrelated to this subject. The source does not mention "Nagpuria" anywhere.[5] Dympies (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your suggestion. I was adding history of the Chotanagpur region. But I will try to remove which are irrelevant and but I think some thing are important in history section. Dev0745 (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I don't think you are in a position to decide that since you are the one who added all of that irrelevant content to the article. You should restore my version and then carefully restore only the relevant parts. Dympies (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think you have right to remove all important materials which are added since 2018. There are many important materials related to Nagpuria people such as names, culture, communities etc. You are not admin.. If you want any changes, then talk with admin. Dev0745 (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an admin to make a decision in content dispute. You are clearly showing WP:OWN behavior and evading concerning about your problematic editing (addition of irrelevant content and misrepresentation of sources). Dympies (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First read WP:OWN carefully. It clearly state be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor; it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them. So large amount of written material should not be removed. You are not the only person in Wikipedia who can decide. If you have any objection, you can edit any topic, but removing so much content is against Wikipedia policy. If you have confusion, you can talk with Admin. Dev0745 (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are showing page ownership by obstructing any attempt to improve the article. Do you understand that your own knowledge isn't enough and it needs to comply with WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY contrary to your claim here? Why would you even make this claim when I already cited BLP and lack of sources in my earlier edit[6]? Tell me you don't have a WP:CIR issue. Dympies (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check the article of the people before removing them. The added person are either native speaker of Nagpuri language, or caste which speak only nagpuri language such as Chik Baraik, Nagvanshi and Routia, you can check it. Some are prominent writers, musician of Nagpuri language and they belong to the caste which speak Nagpuri language. So your claim about WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY not hold ground. Dev0745 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked names like Bulu Chik Baraik, Lal Pingley Nath Shahdeo, Nikki Pradhan and others and there is no source or information in this article that confirms them to be "Nagpuria" people. I only see that you are unnecessarily adding "Category:Nagpuria people"[7][8][9] in these articles. Are you unaware of WP:CATDEF?

Why you restored this completely irrelevant content again here? It is partially related to history of Eastern India but nothing much with "Nagpuria people". It is ironic that you were opposing the addition of "irrelevant" content just below this section at User_talk:Dev0745#Requesting_few_inputs, while you are yourself promoting "irrelevant" content elsewhere. I sense this to be deceptive POV pushing on your part.

Apparently, you were topic banned by El C just 2 years ago and you were warned last time by Johnuniq for your disruptive editing just 1 month ago.[10] You are not only exhibiting WP:CIR at this stage but also showing disruptive WP:OWN behavior by obstructing every single improvement that is being made to the article. Your uncollaborative approach including the false claim that only admins can make decisions within content dispute as justification for your obstruction should be also noted by these admins and they should sanction you accordingly. Dympies (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dympies: I would need two or three clear examples of an ongoing problem that a discussion has failed to resolve. They would have to be explained in simple terms that an admin with no topic knowledge can follow. There would need to be a genuine engagement with the points raised and nothing else should be discussed at the same time. That is, there would need to be a tight focus on the problem and replies would have to clearly address points raised without distractions. I know it's hard to get opinions from others but there should be an attempt, say at a wikiproject. Ping me if you can identify a couple of discussions, preferably on an article talk page, where I might be able to see a reason for administrative action. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: The whole article Nagpuria people is created by Dev0745 and the problems are that he has: 1) used unreliable sources, 2) misrepresented sources, 3) added off-topic content, 4) added unsourced content, 5) he is showing WP:OWN behavior.

Some crucial diffs:-

1) adding people's name without any sources[11] but he claimed above that he is doing it because the pages of these people say they are "nagpuria" but I have shown an example that they don't and its just Dev0745 who is adding category "Nagpuria people" in those pages without any heed to WP:CATDEF.

2) Adding information nothing to do with the subject.[12] I already asked him about it and he is trying to justify it by replying below that "why would be this page be exception when other article of ethnic groups also talk about regional history". This is another example of completely off-topic addition with no relation to "Nagpuria people". This is just same.

3) Falsifying sources. I could find many but here I am providing you with the smallest and easiest examples to judge misrepresentation:

• Here.

Dev0745's text:

"Brahmins were unwilling to recognise them as Hindus and branded them as untouchable and were not performing rituals in their wedding ceremony."

Actual text:

"The only objections to their being recognized as Hindus has been their unclean habits."[13]

Its a clear-cut falsification because nowhere the source claim that "Brahmins were unwilling to recognise them as Hindus." Not to mention that he is using a source from 1896 to talk about this subject, contrary to WP:RAJ.

• Here.

Dev0745's text:

"Kashyap gotra found in very large numbers as many followers of non-vedic tradition were adopted it during 1st millennium CE due to spread of prosthelic activities of Brahmins."

Actual text from unreliable source he used:

"‘Kashyap’ is the universal gotra, possibly because, as in Srimad Bhagwat Puran saga of creation – dated to the latter half of the Christian millennium - , Maharishi Kashyap and his myriad wives generated the most varied and largest number of beings."

The source does not attribute "prosthelic activities of Brahmins" behind "Kashyap" gotra (lineage).

4) Using unreliable sources. Just here he used unreliable sources like "indpaedia.com", "Jharkhand General Knowledge 2022", "okworldguru.com", in a single edit.

There should be no doubt that Dev0745 has WP:CIR issues together with the problems I mentioned. This is not even the only article he has disrupted. The damage he is causing can be reviewed only if he is under some restriction. Dympies (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dympies:, following are my points:

1) Notable people are added as they are sourced. Some people's mother tongue is nagpuri. Some belongs to only nagpuri speaking caste such as Chik Baraik, Nagvanshi, Rautia. Some belongs to caste who speak Nagpuri as well as other language but they are prominent writers, musician of Nagpuri language. Is it necessary that sources will say that they are from Nagpuria community not their mother tounge is nagpuri, belongs A or B caste (nagpuri speaking caste) or prominent writers of Nagpuri language and belong to the A or B caste (which speak Nagpuri language as well as other language).

2) The proto-history is connected to Sadan or Nagpuria people as according to some histrorian Copper Hoard people were early Aryan speaker also according to Jharkhand Co-ordination committee, Sadan or Nagpuria people are early Aryan speaker. So there is a clear connection with proto-history with Nagpuria people.

3)

• The article [14] is secondary scolarly article written in 2016 about situation of colonial period. Source is not direct colonial paper. I have corrected wording later. If the writing of situation during British rule citing secondary sources fall under Raj Era writings, then I think it should be removed.

• Is powerpolitics.in unreliable? How can anyone decide?

4) I can agree about Indpaedia, okworldguru (doesn't warranties completeness and accuracy which I read later). But do you think Jharkhand General knowledge of Prabhat Prakashan is unreliable? I think Prabhat Prakashan is leading publication. Also I have citied Psychology Press publication. Dev0745 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stated you earlier chik-Baraik, Bhogta and Nagvanshi are traditional speakers of Nagpuri language. You can check in communities section. Before accusing other about competent issue first look about your activity. You have removed huge content here[15] without verifing it which is against Wikipedia policy. And why would be this page be exception when other article of ethnic groups also talk about regional history such as Neolithic, Indus valley civilization, copper age etc. Punjabis, Bengali people, Sindhi people, Konkani people are few examples of this. Do you think this page is exception Dev0745 (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

-- Ekdalian (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ARE#Dev0745. You can consider making a response to this report against yourself. Dympies (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefiniely topic-banned from all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for continued use of low-quality sources, misrepresentation of sources, and improper synthesis of sources, after a warning from Seraphimblade for the same behavior at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive313 § Result concerning Dev0745

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 contentious topics procedure. 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.  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]