User talk:Dsnb07

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

--RegentsPark (comment) 10:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and Acknowledged. ~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kashmir Files[edit]

Note that claiming somebody to have "vandalised" something without providing evidence is considered a personal attack. I suggest you review what WP:vandalism means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 please refer to Wikipedia:Consensus. You are not doing right thing based on multiple wikipedia policy. Dsnb07 (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your calling a good faith editor's actions "vandalism" is in and of itself deseving of a block under this DS. You should strike and apologize before an admin takes official notice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if it hurt someone. Shall we not speak what we believe is true? Writing whole plot with single source is right because someone has been in good faith in past? Dsnb07 (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom[edit]

Your post is not appropriate there. You need to withdraw that and post at WP:ANI --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

which one? Dsnb07 (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

which what? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you mentioned "need to withdraw that", I need to withdraw what? are you referring to arbitration request? Dsnb07 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Hi Dsnb07. You're skating on thin ice with edits like this and this. Also, you're not assuming good faith in this edit. Please assume good faith, don't throw templates around, and engage constructively in the discussion on the talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 09:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the warning above, you've posted this in response to this unacceptable comment. You're getting a lot of rope here but another comment about bias or in support of a comment about bias, and you will be sanctioned. --RegentsPark (comment) 08:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks ~~~~ Dsnb07 (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:The Kashmir Files. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Kautilya3 (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been very respectful sir. I am asking right question backed by source with high level of humility and civility . Point me to my communication which hurt you. Dsnb07 (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sections 48 to 51 on the talk page are yours. All of them claim "misrepresentation", "misperception", NPOV violation etc. etc. That is not "respectful". You have also told Bishonen: "the editor in subject has done similar thing in past", without saying what.

You have been here for barely a month. Your understanding of Wikipedia policies is still vague. Your knowledge of Kashmir topics is minimal. Please don't act like you are the master of the universe. Tone it down, watch things carefully and learn what you can. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

I have been focussed on content when I said misperception, misrepresentation, NPOV. I am not saying your are doing intentionally or not. (That's what wiki policy says focus on content)
I may be new to wiki but always looking forward to learn from different editor including.
I am Kashmiri and a IIM (Management) + Harvard (South Asian history major) so know a bit about Kashmir as well as South Asian history.

Dsnb07 (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

correction : Harvard (South Asian history major)

I humbly request you to help the community to make The Kashmir Files page neutral, and factual. Dsnb07 (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to us what your background is. Only what you do here matters.

I suggest you stop using bold face for highlighting. It counts as WP:SHOUTing.

Terms like "misrepresentation" etc. are highly judgemental. You can rather say, something is "not in source" or "not verified". Then we would provide other sources or give you pointers to where you can look things up. The language we use is in the context of other well-established pages on Wikipedia. One cannot (should not) add citations for every word or phrase used in the description. But if they are contentious, we might add explanatory footnotes. So raising questions is fine, but labelling things is "misrepresentation" is not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 : It doesn't matter to us what your background is.
- User:Dsnb07 : I know I was just answering to you comment where you said "Your knowledge of Kashmir topics is minimal" (which was offending)
Kautilya3 : you stop using bold face for highlighting.
- User:Dsnb07 :I will keep this in mind. Having said that as per WP:SHOUT "Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases but should be used judiciously". Please note "May be" not "Always"
Kautilya3 : Terms like "misrepresentation"
- User:Dsnb07 :I am pointing to only content as misrepresentation and not saying editor is doing intentionally. I sincerely assume all editor in good faith. Dsnb07 (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardment of Talk:The Kashmir Files[edit]

Dsnb07, by my count you have started 22 sections and made over a hundred posts to this talkpage within the last week. As you'll be well aware, this talkpage is already seeing a lot of traffic and attention, and such bombardment can make it difficult to navigate the page and address the issues. Please consider discussing related issues in a single section and limiting the quantum of your posts to that page overall.
Also, it would be advisable as a new account to diversify your interests beyond a single page/topic since being a single purpose account often distorts one's perspective and limits ones understanding of encyclopedic writing and process. Abecedare (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Abecedare,

Thanks for your advise, I'll keep it in my mind and diverse page. Also, I would like you to region of doing so, I love Wikipedia and was a Wikipedian in my universities days. I felt bad when a professor of my younger one asked him to not quote wikipedia because it does is not give space to neutrality to POV. That day I created new account ( forgot old user/pass).

Now, Regarding 22 sections created by me (I did not counted it but I trust you), Majority of them points are around wiki policy and NOPV. None of them are irrelevant.

Please note, I didn't change the TKF article but tried to build consensus and raised policy issue which require creation of section. There are editor who are not building consensus and changing article with certain POV , so why would the need new section? I humbly request you and all esteem editor to bear with me while I am try to improve neutrality of this article. I assure you that my account not single purpose account.

Thanks Dsnb07 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can remove a resolved tag if you disagree with it rather than adding an unresolved tag on top of it. And, you should not add those "not done" templates to comments opened by you. It makes no sense (not done indicates that it won't be done) and is confusing and tendentious. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Dsnb07 (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a positive note: appreciate you self-reverting start of another new talk-page section about an issue that is already being discussed on the talkpage in calmer terms. Abecedare (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The already being discussed Thread is unsigned and I am not able to reply. Dsnb07 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is regarding a recent update which removed the whole box office section. The reason provided is "Not a financial log" which is inadequate and justifiable.
- Please check Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Box_office for more details on Box office section
- Here are some examples Box_office section of film where a detailed financial log is provided.
  - Indian Films : Bajrangi_Bhaijaan#Box_office , PK_(film)#Box_office, Secret_Superstar#Box_office
  - Hollywood films : Avatar_(2009_film)#Box_office Terminator_2:_Judgment_Day#Box_office both are Wikipedia:Good articles)
Can you please revert change? Dsnb07 (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content issue is best discussed on the article talkpage among involved editors. As an admin, I am just trying to enable that discussion and don't plan to get involved in the content itself unless it egregiously violates policy. The length and exact content of the 'Box Office' section is an editorial decision and I will only second what RegentsPark said on the page on how to proceed. Hope that helps. Abecedare (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree with what RegentsPark said on excessive trivia and being less encyclopaedic . Check the wiki film example provided by me, if you compare with examples it is much less. Also, these are not just any example last two are rated a Wikipedia:Good articles. It should have been removed at first less specially if it is edit protected. Dsnb07 (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Files request[edit]

Hi Dsnb07, please could you consider the consensus in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Drama_Film_to_Historical_Drama and provide your feedback in the section? Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done seems fair ask to change genre to Historical Drama Dsnb07 (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction[edit]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic-banned from all Kashmir related pages and discussions

You have been sanctioned for continued disruption of TALK:The Kashmir Files through a high number of, and often poor quality or snide posts (which have now spread to other pages in this topic-area) and despite previous warnings and guidance.

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. Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have kept the topic area of the ban narrow in the hope that you can learn to edit productively in other areas and even ask for this ban to be rescinded say 3 months from now. However, if the disruption continues elsewhere the topic-ban may be expanded or converted into a block. If in doubt whether a particular page or discussion falls within the scope of the topic-ban please ask me or any other admin for clarification before editing/participating. Let me know if you have any other questions. Abecedare (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will challenge it and fight it. You can't unilaterally ban me without giving option to put forward my point of view. Also, you are not an uninvolved administrator because you have your on POV on the topic and actively involved. Thanks. Dsnb07 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure to appeal in outlined in the last paragraph of the above notice. You are welcome to do so but I'd advice you to take your time and read the linked pages first. Abecedare (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my above reply I just reacted because was not expecting a ban from you so got emotional. A sincere apologies from my heart.

I have replied to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rhetoric pointedly help me to understand where I am wrong in noticeboard or here. Dsnb07 (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dsnb07, the AE Log is not the right venue to add a comment and therefore I have reverted your edit to that page. Again, take you time, read the linked policy pages and then, if you wish to still do so, file an appeal at WP:AE or WP:AN. Reacting emotionally is likely to just get you in deeper in the hole. Abecedare (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested, I want to appeal to you first and then move forward (if needed). Let me know If you are open to hear my appeal. Dsnb07 (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dsnb07, I am already aware of your edit-history, which I had reviewed before dropping the earlier note, and am not comfortable modifying the AE sanction I issued. So, if you wish, you can proceed to appealing the topic-ban at WP:AN or WP:AE where other admins will be able to review it. Abecedare (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]