Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! asilvering (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Dantidurga did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences→ Editing→ Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks!Janan2025 (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi Pawapuri Winds! I noticed that you recently made an editat Microorganism and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Remsense🌈论23:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ah! Thanks for pointing out. Actually the next edit which I made was supposed to be minor. Will keep in mind. Thanks. Can you kindly share with me how to access Sandbox for testing and creating article?:) Pawapuri Winds (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Glad to see a SA history student around here - this topic area needs as much help from trained historians as it can possibly get. Please be very careful to avoid the two subtopics (milhist and caste) until you have become extended confirmed. There are a lot of sockmasters working in this topic area, so that probably wasn't your first SPI accusation. Stay calm and you'll get through. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Honestly, it all needs help, haha. WP:HOI is listed as "inactive", but that doesn't stop you from looking through their lists of articles and maintenance tags for something to do. Just make sure you stay away from anything even close to "military history" for now, which might be a bit hard. -- asilvering (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! I'm ChaseKiwi. I just wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the page Parasnath have been reverted because they appear to have added incorrect information. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source, discuss it on the article's talk page, or leave me a message on my talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Removal of the section and wording relevant to Santhal community was undeclared in your edit summaries. You may have a conflict of interest and have already been advised I note to err on side of caution with respect to social groups...related to India. I apologise if useful content was removed in the full reversion but do note that other articles cover the religious significance of the geographical feature and other authors have been advised that such detail is best in them. You may have a point with use of term salvation but can perhaps best discuss this in talk.ChaseKiwi (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have noted that you broke the contentious topic rule by not having 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days when you deleted sourced information about another Indian social group on this page on the 16th September despite being warned above. You have also declined mediation. I will in due course ensure the page re-includes relevant sourced information that you deleted. Please adhere to Wikipedia policy on contentious topics. My plan for altering the article on this geographical feature is outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. ChaseKiwi (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi @ChaseKiwi, we have already talked about this topic a number of time. We had a discussion and I could not find any another supporting your claims. Even on dispute resolution page, you just gave the same long answer without addressing the points raised by me in the talk page. Kindly refrain from disruptive editing. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gujarat, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and Patan. 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.)
I am sorry but looking at your own past records and biased views wrt. Jainism and in favor of Buddhism, I need not require your advertisement of an account. Thanks. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Buddhism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please stop shoehorning inappropriately sourced content-how is it inappropriately sourced?!! The content which I added, is a highly good and scholarly quality commentary of a text which was recited at Sabarmati Ashram of Mahatma Gandhi regulary, as the primary text was composed by his mentor Shrimad Rajchandra. How do you call this undue!? Pawapuri Winds (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable through reliable, independent, secondary sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view is regarded as disruptive editing per WP:DISRUPT. Please consider to visit the WP:TEAHOUSE if you have any questions about the relevant policies and guidelines or if you need help with editing. JimRenge (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC) supplemented JimRenge (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mahavira. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
You've been told, just one day ago diff, that the accusation of "vandalism" should not be made lightly. Now you're doing it again diff. It looks like you don't understand, or are not able to understand, how Wikipedia works and what it's aims are; take care. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!20:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
How is removing a highly sourced content without explanation not vandalism? This is certainly not a mere good faith edit! Kindly explain the reason of your removal of the information. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.
Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have already requested for an explanation on talk page for removal of information which I have not got yet. How do you accuse me of edit warring. I have simply added a highly sourced information on Buddhism page, which is being deleted without explanation. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I genuinely do not understand how the added info is violation of WP:UNDUE. I am seeking for an explanation for that. Please respond to the suggestion I provided on your talk page to end this long ongoing dispute, if we both agree to remove information which appears biased, undue or one-sided to us. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Nope, adding info first time does not count. Secondly, I reached out to all opponents on talk page for explanation, none of them gave a clear reason on exactly how is added content violation of the policies they cited. Have stopped reverting after that. Pawapuri Winds, (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
And so was not disinterest by a particular user account to gain consensus. What are your views on that. Let's be very open now, they have purely made it religion A vs religion B. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Your mass-reverts at Mahavira, because of your pov-pushing on "proto-Jain" are already not done, but warning Avatiputra because he's rightfully reverting you is really inappropriate. I'm not even going to issue an official warning here; I just make a statement for future reference. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!19:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Please come to the discussion on AN to respond to the charges of discrimination laid against you. It's important that we hear from you. LizRead!Talk!21:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Liz, I feel the allegations are unfair, and that restricting Mahavira while issuing me a warning was premature. The decision seems to have been made before the two accused editors could respond, and I’m concerned that clear editorial bias may have influenced the outcome. Do you believe this process helps the platform’s credibility? I’m requesting a reconsideration and an opportunity to present my side. Please involve large number of administrators and I would be glad to talk with them. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for making aspersions against other editors and refusing to provide evidence or strike them when told to. Hate is disruptive, and referring to editors you disagree with as "Buddhist extremist accounts" based solely on the fact they self-identify as Buddhist is entirely unacceptable conduct.
Latest comment: 11 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
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).
Hello. I was blocked after I referred to several accounts as “religious extremists” while discussing concerns about POV on Mahavira. I recognize that this phrasing was uncivil and a personal attack under WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I apologize to the editors affected and to the admin who handled the report.
My intent was to raise sourcing/neutrality concerns, but I understand that characterizing other editors is unacceptable regardless of my concerns. I will not use labels about religion, ideology, or motives again. Instead I will:
keep all comments content-focused with page-cited sources (per WP:V/WP:RS), and discuss weight neutrally (per WP:DUE/WP:NPOV);
avoid personal remarks and assumptions of intent (per WP:NPA/WP:AGF);
use appropriate forums—article Talk, RfC, or relevant noticeboards—for disputes (per WP:DR);
step away if I feel frustrated and seek input from uninvolved editors.
I had already asked an administrator how was this term derogatory so that I would refrain from using them but I was blocked unanswered. The reason why I asked because I was myself given a life threat of being burnt by one of the supporters of an administrator on talk page of Mahavira and was accused being a promotor of Jainism by an administrator, which made me erroneously believe that just addressing an account by their religion merely to highlight a pov pushing might not be an incorrect conduct.
If the reviewing admin believes conditions would help, I’m willing to accept an interaction reminder, an interaction ban with specific editors, or a page-limited restriction related to the dispute. I’m requesting an unblock to continue editing within policy and with improved conduct. Thank you.
Decline reason:
The majority of your appeal appears to be AI-generated, which is presumably the reason why it rings very hollow: I am not at all convinced, based on your behaviour hitherto and the string of warnings on this page, that you can "step away if I feel frustrated" etc. All the things you say you would do are certainly right, but I'd like to hear you explain them in your words, not those of AI. AI-generated appeals are declined on sight, in any case.
The part which, I suspect, is not from AI is the last bullet point ("I had already asked an administrator..."), and that gives me some concern. A disruptive anonymous IP editor says, obviously jokingly, that they will "burn you all" if you don't stop fighting, and from that you conclude that name-calling and slurs of a religious nature are okay? You also (mis)interpret that as a "life threat" – so did you similarly conclude that threatening others is also now okay?
You may yet be able to get yourself unblocked, but it won't be based on this appeal. I think you have some more reading and thinking to do first, to understand some of our principles and guidelines around how to work better with others, how to de-escalate rather than escalate disputes, and how not to get triggered into actions which ultimately end up hurting you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2025 (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.
Hi admins, the only reason I used AI is to fix grammar and help me put syntax properly as I am not pro at coding, which you can verify from my edit history on Mahavira - where I struggled in adding citations with apt syntax. I did step away when dispute on Mahavira page regarding dates went beyond limits, only to let things calm down and I do mean all the points stated by me above wholeheartedly. I did not continue edit war even today and instead requested other users to address each topics separately. Therefore, I assure you that it is not a lame AI generated only. Regarding proto-Jain issue, I had initially agreed with the line, however when other users expressed dissatisfaction with them being on the page lead, I decided to re-visit it only out of respect for neutrality and let all voices be heard. I will carefully read the guidelines and above sections and make a new appeal later without using AI tools only after understanding the policies which I am not be aware of yet. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
For when you appeal your block next - admins are much happier to listen to you if you're using your own words, even if the syntax and grammar aren't perfect. They do not expect a formal, professional request; something genuine from your own mind and heart, written and edited only by you, will be seen more favourably. This is the same on other Wikipedia talk pages. Using AI is often seen as disrespectful. We want to talk to you, not an AI! Meadowlark (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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).
Dear Admins of Wikipedia, I deeply apologize for addressing few other fellow editors of wikipedia as 'religious extremist' again. I won't use low language tags for other editors again.
I started reacting badly after an IP user threatened me (likely a misunderstanding by me) and after I got caught into mass reverts. I should have looked for a civil solution rather than retaliating, as it caused unnecessary escalation and spoilt the vibe of discussion on talk page of Mahavira, which ultimately only impacted the quality of the page which we all were trying to improve based on our respective knowledge of the subject. Although I tried to seek some clarification from the admin before I was blocked but I believe I was a bit late.
This appeal is written in my own words typed by myself. If unblocked;
I will avoid personal remarks and also stop others from doing so even if they might be endorsing my view, and be civil in the discussions with other users.
focus only on the content instead of giving loose-talks
use article talk page, notice boards, for ensuring that disagreements are not snowballed into long disputes since I believe that one of the the ultimate purposes of this platform is to make tiniest of useful information easily available to everyone.
Encourage others and even ensure for myself that I do not revert multiple edits together, and address each of the topics separately.
I am even willing to agree any conditions that might be imposed on me by admis eg. ban on editing any particular page, or topic ban-pages that might be directly related to Jainism/Buddhism or restrict interaction with any user, etc. I only want to continue to edit constructively without violating any policy. I will be grateful if unblocked.
I am sorry for calling other editors religious extremists with whom I was indulged into pov edit war once again as it was bitter and hateful.
I find demands that (to paraphrase) a dispute will continue until people of a certain religion stop participating deeply disqualifying at this time. I don't think that needs to be forever, but I don't think you have spent enough time reflecting on your actions. This project is open to people of all races, religions, genders, sexualities, nationalities- and a core requirement of that openness is to figure out how to get along with each other. We don't ask that you like everyone or agree with everyone's philosophy/lifestyle, just that we get along. I think a topic ban from South Asian religions is a must(in some form) and knowing what you might edit about instead. I am declining your request. You may make another for someone else to review, but I suggest this not be for a little while yet. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2025 (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.
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! asilvering (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Dantidurga did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks! Janan2025 (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Buddhism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Please stop your disruptive editing.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ixudi (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Do not add slurs, images, symbols, or other content meant to attack, harass, threaten, or disparage certain people or groups based on nationality, race, ethnicity, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or other factors. Such content is not tolerated by Wikipedia and as such may be hidden from public view at any time by an administrator (or in extreme cases, suppressed). Articles or files of which the only purpose is to attack, harass, threaten or disparage certain people or groups are speedily deleted. If you add hateful, derogatory, or bigoted content again, as you did at Mahavira, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Bushranger One ping only 21:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
