User talk:Itihaaskar

Stop vandalism[edit]

Hi Itihaaskar,

I have observed that you have deleted lot of content from Jat people page. It is vandalism. Do not repeat in future. --burdak 13:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no basis to make the funny claim that chandragupta maurya is a jat. And balhara king notation was for the rasthrakuta king.

Itihaaskar 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are regularly deleting content about Jats from Jat people and other pages. If you think that Chandra Gupta Maurya was not of Jatclan and it is a false claim then put the facts to what clan he belonged to. Also put facts about Balhara rulers which prove things otherwise. Only your opinion will not do. It is your POV. Discuss it on talk page. Do not delete the content till some final consent is arrived at. --burdak 03:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are spreading misinformation. You can see here chandragupta is not a jat.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/4526

Itihaaskar 06:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time block[edit]

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalise in Jat people you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Peter johnson4 03:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you warning me? Chandragupta is not a Jat. Please read this:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/4526

Itihaaskar 11:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete content from Jat people[edit]

You have been warned but still deleting content from Jat people and vandalizing it, which is your only contribution to Wikipedia. If you have something discuss. You are again and again writing only one line that Chandragupta is not Jat. It is not sufficient to prove any thing. So please come forward with any substantial proof. Don't delete content from Jat people without discussion !!! --burdak 15:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a figment of imagination to associate Chandragupts Maurya with Jats. He belonged to the Mauria/Muria clan, and that is why Peacock was a taboo for Mauryas. Jats have no association with Mauriya/Muria/Maurya. But Itihaaskar should not delete others' views, Itihaaskar should add his own version. --Vinay Jha 15:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itihaaskar is a sock puppet[edit]

User Itihhaskar who has made only few "contributions" to the Wikipedia and that is only Jat people page. He is regularly deleting content from this page. He has been warned also for his this activity. If his interest is to contribute to Wikipedia he wold have done edits to other pages also. He has created this false identity to vandalize the Jat people page.

I, therefore, request the Administrators to investigate identity of "Itihaaskar" and to determine if he is really a "sock puppet" for someone else. --burdak 04:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burdak,

Why are you running away from debating the gutta/jat connection? It is clear you are pushing false history. Instead of ad-hominen attacks it will be better if you concentrtate on showing us the connection between chandragupta and jats. Since you are pushing a POV which is false I am deleting it.

Itihaaskar 08:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itihaaskar should provide information about himself/herself in his/her talk page, otherwise people may imagime him/her rightly or wrongly to be a sock-puppet. --Vinay Jha 15:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itihaaskar is a sock puppet[edit]

Itihaaskar has blanked his talk page today and again started deleting content from Jat people. This shows that he is a sock puppet for somebody and it is proposed him to be blocked. --burdak 07:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from ad-hominen attacks and rather focus on giving us some references to support jats as rulers in Marwar. We know them only as peasants. Thanks Itihaaskar 20:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For whom you are using word We. First you have to give your identification on your user page. Why are you hiding identity? --burdak 12:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning[edit]

It is clear that this 124.125.208.23 (talk · contribs) is your sock account.

So here is your last warning before I take you to ANI:

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Jodhaa Akbar, you will be blocked from editing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are being disruptive to wikipedia.

Answer questions on talk page of the movie.

Itihaaskar (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to turn to turn to ANI. Another revert from you is a WP:3RR violation which will bring to your block, meaning, you will not be able to edit at all. You have a very documentative history, using a sock puppet is a violation of WP:SOCK also. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page if it makes you feel good. One editor already comented. So STOP reverting the whole article. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sock puppet, If you don't want to be blocked for a longer period, please stop adding tons of irrelevant stuff. I'm OK with presenting the matter, but NOT the entire view of historians, who also don't make comparisons. Please see WP:UNDUE. Last warning. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now stepping in here for unofficial mediation. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you are, are you not? Please stop trying to enforce your opinions on others. Two other editors agreed that it was NOT relevant. I, on the other hand, decided to support you, because at the end of the day some of the info is relevant in the section, but the last two paragraphs where historians' views are quoted, do not belong to this article. The matter is presented and that's what matters. If you revert again, and start a new edit was, you will be blocked within one-two hours, and now -- for two weeks. And it's not my dicision. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article looks better now. But please see WP:3RR. Your next edit will be your third full revert, maning, a 3RR violation. Take it into your account that I'm going to report that. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, with the article protected lets begin mediation :) CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, you are a sock puppet, and were blocked for that, and now you are threatening me, with invalid warnings. Feel free to report and do whatever you want. I tried to collaborate with you, if you didn't notice that, but you full reverted my copyedits, when actually this info is completely unrelated, and what you see now on the article is sufficient. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because:

You changed the protection template to full, which at the time it wasn't
Your edits are still even now controversial

If you still have problems please tell me. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to a reference that says this. Thanks, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:41, 22 February 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked? Some one should point out what mistake I have made. This is just high handedness of some admins and their friends.

Decline reason:

You have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. — SQL ^{Query me!} 12:06, 3 March 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

SQL I have only edited using my login or my IP address. 125.* If possible please give me details on what other account I have created and what is the reason for saying it is mine?

Decline reason:

As per below. Additionally, unblock requests are to be used to request an unblock, not simply to request additional information. Please refrain from any further abuse of the unblock template. — Yamla (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2008 (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.

Yamla, I have never used anyother account. That is why I feel it is a misjudgement on the part of the admin who blocked me. Itihaaskar (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking admin seems to think that Chaffe sep (talk · contribs · account creation) is a sockpuppet of yours. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Od Misheshu,

I do not know who Chaffe sep is. So how can it be a sockpuppet of mine? The only account I have used is my own and sometimes in the beginning i edited using my ip addrss of 125.*. I have no clue why I have been blocked. Please help.