Dewan357

Sir, Namaste. I am keenly interested in South Indian History. I want to change the name of the article 'Chola Dynasty' to 'Chola Empire' I have given reasons for this on the Talk:Chola_Dynasty

Can you help me?

Thanks.

Srirangam99 (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have given enough reasons warranting change of title of this article. Can you help me with the change in name to Chola Empire?

Thanks.

Srirangam99 (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your best bet is to add a reliable source as a reference to back up your claims. Without a reference, your claims appear to be unsubstantiated, and as such, are grounds for removal. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dewan! Thank you for your note. And I am sorry if I upset you. I know from personal experience how hurtful it can feel when someone reverses your edits.

I would like to add that the study of the Kushan Empire is extremely complex and filled with uncertainties and very few experts agree with each other on many points. There are so many competing claims made about the Kushans, it is difficult to write about their history with confidence. Please feel free to contact me if there are any issues you wish to discuss. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dewan357. You've been reported for edit warring at WP:AN3#User:Dewan357 reported by User:K.Khokhar (Result: ). You may add your own comment there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Although K.Khokhar was blocked due to that report referred to above, as an independent observer I think you need to be careful to avoid antagonising that editor and to take much more care in being neutral. In particular, your comment that "lady you dont know what you are talking about like all your fellow Pakis. The land forming modern day Pakistan formed India. Pakistan was never a land or a nation, India always was. Also your comments is an insult to all Indians. You are a raceist!"[1] is an unacceptable way to communicate on Wikipedia. You used a term, "Paki", which is generally considered to be an ethnic slur, even if some Pakistani people use it or its variant, Pak, within their own community. You stereotyped a nation by saying that Pakistani editors "don't know what they are talking about", and you directly accused another editor of being racist, which is distinctly uncivil. And "lady" is generally a dismissive way of referring to women. Please deal with content disputes in a less inflammatory and a more collegiate manner. Fences&Windows 23:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

p.s. When you comment on talk pages, please include a link to your user page or talk page, per Wikipedia:Signatures, especially as your signature doesn't include your exact username. Fences&Windows 00:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looking at your talk page and track record I will ignore you seem to be hell bent on removing Pakistans mention In any article and you POV push I like the user above states I will remove your POV from articles especially the Mughal Empire Michale245 (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for attracting the attention of Nangparbat to you. Fences&Windows 20:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am getting the feeling that you are thanking me for something I did not do. Perhaps you are referring to Mightymrt_away's edits here. Ironically, my stand as I have been outlined on here and here is that that the HistoryofSouthAsia template is not useful in the lead of the main History of India article. The reason is that I believe that history comprises not merely of a chronology of kingdoms, but is a holistic subject dealing with social, religious, political, economic (etc) affairs of some people over a long period of time; and that to ignore economic history, social history, people's history etc of South Asia would be a gross injustice in presenting a comprehensive view of the state of South Asia through the ages.

I do not oppose the HistoryofSouthAsia template in other articles but I join issue with it being in the lead of the main History of India article. This is in view of my belief that it contains only political history and ergo does not adequately summarize the history of South Asia; indeed the whole orientation of the template is such that it cannot be modified to include other aspects of history. Hence it would be best to abandon its modification if that is being done with the purpose of putting the template in the lead. Regards--Shahab (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have sadly had to reverse User:Dewan357's edits once again. I have discussed all the reasons for reversing his account of the Kushans in detail at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kushan_Empire. Dewan, I have already reversed very similar text (making several of the same faulty points) which you entered on the Kushan empire page and given you ample evidence that the information is unsound and misleading on several counts. Why do you persist repeating the same mistakes? Have you not read my comments? If you have not, please do so before you repeat your mistakes in the Wikipedia once again. Finally, do not reverse my present edit once again. If you want to, please take the issue up with Wikipedia's administrators first. Yours, John Hill (talk)

You made your edit to my page while logged out. Are you certain you were not trying to edit while logged out? The block log shows that there is no block on the account: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&type=block&page=User:Dewan357. Can you post or e-mail me the exact message so I can see if there is an autoblock floating around, please? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note that the autoblock tools shows no autoblocks on your name either: http://toolserver.org/~eagle/autoblockfinder.php?user=Dewan357. -- Avi (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have blocked you one week for your recent edit warring, while logged in as Dewan357 and under various IPs, on Mughal Empire. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

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).

Dewan357 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wrote in your discussion page that several users are in edit warring. I was the one who recommended that the site be protected so why am I blocked. As for multiple IPs I only used this computer. Also I have no interest in going back to the Mughal site.. Thank you

Decline reason:

However, you were edit warring as well. The article's history does show a number of reverts between you and the IP, not counting any edits made whilst you were not logged in. Please use this break to review wikipedia's policies on edit warring. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2009 (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.

You have continued to edit war after being blocked, perhaps a week is not long enough? Regardless, if this continues, stronger measure may need to be taken to protect the project. -- Avi (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note that per WIkipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357 your block has been extended to indefinite by NuclearWarfare. Nathan ^T 20:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

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).

Dewan357 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Can I know when I will be unblocked..Is it a week, month, year....putting me in indef is ridiculous...I might be responsible for going out of line sometimes but my edits are great...see what I did in the History sections of Indian articles.

Decline reason:

It's a standard that if you keep trying to evade a block, it eventually gets extended to indef. If yuou want any chance of getting unblocked, please read the advice at the end of this section of our guide for appealing blocks. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 10 September 2009 (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.

 

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).

Dewan357 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It has been a month already. I have followed the rules by avoiding to edit. Can I know when I will be unblocked. I am being accused of evading block which is unfair because it is not me. This Aamirshkh user is not me. Can I know when I can be unblocked. Please! because I have followed the rules as stated in the policy by avoiding wiki. So please can I know when I will be unblocked. I have done many good contribution and made over 7,500 edits and fixed many articles.

Decline reason:

No. You appear to still be breaking the rules regarding the use of multiple accounts, and since checkuser and analysis of editing patterns has already made it clear that you are doing so, claiming that you aren't (while continuing to do it) doesn't help me believe that you are likely to stop. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:16, 23 September 2009 (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.

 

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).

Dewan357 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

That is not true. Show me evidence that I am avoiding the block. I want to see this before falsely accuse me of something that I have not done.

Decline reason:

We have the checkuser case; you've got to be aware of it. Since a) this is your fourth unblock request without saying anything more than "I didn't do it" despite Checkuser, which DOES NOT LIE, saying you did and b) your continuing to use this line of argument is obviously intended as an attempt to insult the reviewing administrators' intelligence and c) you insulted Checkuser by casting unreasonable doubt on it, not only are you not going to be unblocked but your page will be protected so you won't be wasting your time and ours with these requests anymore. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2009 (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.

Looks like Dewnans sock is back again after his indefinate block hes back on the same articles pushing his pov:[2] same old articles same pov I suggest that admins semiprotect the target pages and revrt his edits to deal with his sock accounts thankyou 86.158.232.138 (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note he used the above sock account after he requested the unblock after realising hes blocked forever 16:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.232.138 (talk)

 

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).

Dewan357 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Request to be unblocked. Can my block be reduced for indef to a shorter time period. (Dewan 01:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

Decline reason:

No, blocks are lifted entirely or left as they stand.

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:53, 9 July 2012 (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.

 

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).

Dewan357 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked years ago, and understand the reason for which I was blocked, using multiple accounts to avoid blocks. It has been several years, so I know after this long period of time that I can make useful edits on wikipedia. (Dewan 04:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

Decline reason:

This unblock request was filed 74 minutes after a previous one was declined without addressing any of the issues the admin raised in that one. Please address those issues before requesting unblock again. -- Selket ^Talk 21:31, 12 July 2012 (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.

Please look at Wikipedia:Standard offer and make a statement about each of those terms. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bobby Mehta is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Mehta until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TLA (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply