User talk:Blamen1

February 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Kalash people, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Kindly raise your concern here. Ping the users involved in the talks Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kalash people; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Blamen1 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: ). Thank you. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

This edit summary suggests that you are a returning user. If so, you need to declare your previous accounts on your user page. Failure to do this will result in a block. Please see WP:Sockpuppetry. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I did't know. It's simply Blamen, please check the article. I lost the password, so I'm sorry for any confusion. Blamen1 (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not Blamen2 guys, please ban him. Blamen1 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked

Apologies. I have unblocked you and indicated that your weren't at fault in the edit summary. Be careful though because you are at the cusp of violating WP:3RR --regentspark (comment) 17:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Kalash article

Why are you in a hurry. Let a solid consensus develop. Only a few people commented on the topic and that also once or twice. Even RfCs typically run for 30 days. If we develop a solid consensus against Minahan source then in future we can direct users to this consensus if they try putting it back. Have patience. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I think the consensus is as strong as it can reasonably be expected to be. There hasn't been any further discussion on the talk page in over a week, and it's unlikely there will be unless an actual RfC is started. Most people seem to agree that the source isn't reliable, and it appears that it's also not really needed in that context. – Uanfala (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Uanfala:, I'm by and large neutral in this matter, but I found the timelines especially wrong. @Anupam: did mention some points in support of keeping the source. I've contacted him. Maybe he can add something. I wanted Blamen1 to wait for atleast a month (typical time period of an RfC) before deleting. An RfC would be real nice to settle the matter once and for all. Would you start it? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe the issue has already seen its fares share of discussion and the rough consensus appears clear. Also, my personal opinion is that an RfC for such a question will be like using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito, but if you see the need for an RfC, feel free to start one. – Uanfala (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Minahan is not terming the religion of Kalash "ancient Hinduism". You don't have to call on others to figure this out, nor statements also made by other authors correct all historical flaws. Blamen1 (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)