User talk:Callmehelper

February 2024

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to KRSNA (rapper)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Chanakya, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mentioned a citing source? Those changes I make is entirely based on RTI file on Archeological evidence of India (ASI) for the actual historical existence of Chanakya. ASI replied there is no any historical existence of Chanakya or Kautilya. Callmehelper (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RTI and ASI are both governmental departments and are not scholarly in nature. Scholarly consensus matters here the most and that is not favorable to your edits. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Constitution of India. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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 ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey yo ratnahastin .

Please Look at the constitution of India where I edit the things that you called as a disruptive .

Please read those only two or three lines and make video in youtube and called ambedkar give credit to B N Rau only and give this wikipedia page as a evidence. But by the next few lines of speech make clear that he want to give credit to all the members who give the major contribution during the making of constitution.

So I add a bunch of lines more of that original speech so it appeared or giving the full intention of that speech.

But you remove those additional content and called it not necessary is entirely wrong and people when read it will be completely mislead. So I want to you change it and make it fair. I am waiting for 1 or 2 days , otherwise I will do again what I do in previous time. Putting original speech that make fair thoughts is good rather than giving one line that misguide the people.

I always follow the guidelines of wikipedia. But some people don't understand it .

I hope you got my point. Callmehelper (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is succinct enough. You don't have to provide a larger version because it is simply not needed there. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You either don't understand indian political scenario or your thoughts are completely Brahmanised. So clearly I have to do it myself. Callmehelper (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize my comment about your thoughts and logic was inappropriate, and I apologize for that. I shouldn't make this type of comments.

But please try to understand my point of view as a neutral perspective. Callmehelper (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Banka district, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amarpur Assembly constituency. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Prasad Singh

I have fixed the page, but kindly add more references to it. Try finding some reliable sources. Thank You. Happy editing. Taabii (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definately will. Thanks for improving it ✊ Callmehelper (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmehelper Use cite book for adding books, don't write in Hindi, use English only. Focus on adding reliable sources not information. Happy editing. Taabii (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hi Callmehelper! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Ambedkar Jayanti several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Ambedkar Jayanti, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i am well aware of Wikipedia policy. if i make any editing, i completely rely with sources that are very reliable.

you should discuss first with me if you have problem with it without reverting first.

you don't read citations I guess. all the revised version are well are arranged with very reliable sources.

without reverting first you should tell me where i put any wrong claim and doens't provide source for this .

but i guess you take citations a Joke. otherwise you would be well agreed with what i did. Callmehelper (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are entirely problematic. You are adding "Dr." in front of Ambedkar in violation of MOS:DOCTOR. You are adding the debunked claim of Ambedkar being "architect of the constitution" when this was already refuted here. You should self-revert. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I removed Dr. from his name.

but discription like principal architect of constitution of India or father of Indian constitution is totally factual for Ambedkar. It is widely used by reputable news articles, journals, books. It is not a claim that should be debunked. it is now become an inherent part of his legacy.

If you still disagree, then in talk page i will cite almost all the famous news article from BBC to Hindu and Journals and book by historian like Eleanor Zelliot etc that regard him such notion.

Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic alert

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, 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 special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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.

Capitals00 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which page I edited which is related to india afghanistan and pakistan?

give me whole context. Callmehelper (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suraj Yengde

This is not a project page, so I have moved it to Draft:Suraj Yengde. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Suraj Yengde

Hello Callmehelper,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Suraj Yengde for deletion, because it's a redirect to a non-existent or deleted page.

If you don't want Suraj Yengde to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 05:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. please delete it or make a whole new page or merge it with this name. here is whole Draft Suraj Yengde Callmehelper (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

Your additions in this edit here, have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.)

To see the possible source of the copyrighted text, look in the edit summary which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. There should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation, set off using the blockquote template. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. ~~~~ S Philbrick (Talk) 19:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hii @Sphilbrick, thanks for telling me about my mistakes on choosing copyright content. i will keep in mind for further any editing in future.

Apart from this , you revert all my editing, which seems odd. as there is nothing like khawaspur village in Ropar district in Pakistan. infact there is no Ropar district in Pakistan.

while i citing for my editing , you Just revert all my efforts.

i also check contribution history, Many editors claim that whole page is totally mistaken to Pakistan which is wrong.

So please notify me about my wrongs and if possible, then allow me to do a whole revision of this page . i will provide a variable citation for further editing.

Regards Callmehelper (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I initially didn't understand your comment but now I have a guess. Please bear in mind that I am located in the states and not particularly knowledgeable about the geography of India and Pakistan, although ironically for different reasons I had occasion to read the Wikipedia article about Pakistan a few minutes ago. I think you are saying that Khawaspur is not in Pakistan but in India, and you may have been trying to correct that information.

Let me change gears and explain something that is somewhat surprising to new editors. When we come across the net which appears to be a copyright violation, in this case inserting information from the census of India which is in fact copyrighted, it is standard practice to revert not just that particular edit but all consecutive edits by the same editor. I'm happy to explain why if needed. In some cases that will revert otherwise acceptable edits. If that's the case here let's discuss and I can probably manage to recover some of the acceptable edits. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying again.

My mistake is that whole demographics subheading which is entirely copyrighted content which just i copy paste from that citation. but apart from this , i think all rest edits are not any copyright violation.

Nevertheless, i can again edit whole page from starting , if you allow me to do so . Callmehelper (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tina Dabi (January 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Notability was decided pursuant to a discussion a few months ago here.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tina Dabi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Callmehelper! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pease do not move it here

Those who have participated know what is said, and we do not move noticeboard conversations to user talk pages'. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent, Sorry but i was saying that how could be that draft, move into my userpage not notice board conversations.
Thanks. if that's not possible then you can tell me about that.
Thanks. Callmehelper (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to move it to a user subpage of yours and to remove all the AfC submission material? I am happy to do so for you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent, yes pls.
Thanks.
Much Regards Callmehelper (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please seeUser:Callmehelper/Tina Dabi where you may do further work at leisure. I suggest you think very carefully before considering submitting it for review. It has been a pleasure meeting you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent, yes ofcourse. After discussing with senior editor like you et al , i really satisfied with conversations and probably I won't submit again for atleast 2 or 3 years until or unless she got more exceptional recognitions.
Thanks for the discussions.
it really a pleasure worthy discussion for me.
Hope we meet someday again with another problems or for valuable discussion.✊ Callmehelper (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice about AE

This message is made for notifying you about a discussion on WP:ARE#Callmehelper about your edits. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Callmehelper! Your additions to Suraj Yengde have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mudrarakshas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thinker.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dagdu Maruti Pawar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baluta.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AE warning

Hi, Callmehelper. Please note that I have closed the AE thread about you and logged the following warning: Callmehelper is warned by AE consensus for edit-warring. Further edit-warring may result in sanctions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poykayil Yohannan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Appachan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ajeeb Dastan Hai Yeh (song) has been accepted

Ajeeb Dastan Hai Yeh (song), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bhaben Barua, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assamese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Anant Maral Shastri

added a link pointing to Administrator

Debala Mitra

added a link pointing to Bengal Province

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:B. R. Ambedkar

Please stop repetitive disruptive editing on that page. If you continue, I will have no option but to post at AE where you have already been warned once. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

user:Tamzin Can you please help? I have never seen such bizarre repetitive editing. I don't know if they are sealioning or simply too inexperienced to know better (both WP TPG and traditions of sourcing), but their behavior is becoming positively disruptive. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

F&F , you are the one of the senior experienced editor here but i never expect from you to try to manipulate whole discussion by involving a totally an unparticipated admin to take any action. There are already two to three admins there namely Valereee, vanamonde93, RegentsPark who are once involved in the discussion and have more inclined towards me or atleast all neutral. But you are involving an another admin Tamzin for only because she give me a logged warning once ? By thinking that once an unexperienced editor like me who once got logged warning must be doing disruptive editing ? It's not like that. i got logged warning because I am not aware of how to use twinkle technically at that time. But nevertheless, Tamzin will definately see how you removed my reply when i ask admin to help while you are accusing me of sealioning. I don't think you have right to remove my reply when i ask for help in talk page, do you ?

Anyway I won't let you goalposting all the time, hence i already did a RFC about discussion and I am hoping you will not delete that my reply too. Callmehelper (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (B. R. Ambedkar and Talk:B. R. Ambedkar) for CIR.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Valereee (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CMH, I'm sorry, but after repeated attempts to get you to stop using non-RS, including 70-year-old sources, nonscholarly sources, sources that don't say what you're saying they say after multiple explanations; continuing with long walls of text after multiple pleas to be brief, bludgeoning, and an ability to communicate in English that is limited enough that it makes understanding you very difficult, I'm having to declare this an issue of insufficient ability to work at that article competently. You are free to edit anywhere else, but not at Ambedkar. Valereee (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee okay. i respect your decision. May I ask you some questions?

Do F&F have right to delete my reply in talk page – for asking help
If F&F say that 'Ambedkar is not architect in 1950' then i show him 1950s source and this make me a culprit for using non-reliable 70 years old source?
After your advice for no more wall of text (5 March, I don't know when i write wall of text again apart from RFCs ?
Sources that don't say what i am saying? which one?
which are nonscholary sources that i used? any of these- (from 1950s to 2020s) Dhananjay Keer (1954, p. 397), Michael Brecher (1959, p. 423), Christophe Jaffrelot (Cambridge UP, 2003, p. 4), Ramachandra Guha (Harvard UP, 2013, p. 288), Patricia Popelier (Springer, 2019, p. 199), Abhinav Chandrachud (Oxford UP, 2020, p. 69), Steven Calabresi (Oxford UP, 2021, p. 284)

[My English probably be a issue, but that is evolving, i should not deserve a block for my English]

Kind Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen the AE section. Maybe explanations from other admins will help you understand this. The pblock isn't for your English, but your English probably contributed to the issues with getting you to understand why other editors are objecting to these sources for this issue, which appears to be both highly nuanced and contentious.

FWIW, it looks to me like other editors are looking for sources that are making arguments for/against whether there is/should be developing academic agreement on whether Ambedkar actually was the 'chief architect', while you are giving them sources that are using the term in the popular characterization sense when making a brief mention of Ambedkar. And when F&F discussed coming up with some proposed language that would include the phrase in the article, but it wasn't the exact way you apparently wanted it stated: That Ambedkar was the chief architect, in Wikivoice -- you went back to arguing that sources proved that, when other editors are saying they don't. And you're throwing literally everything against the wall: In the RfC, you wrote: There are never ending sources has on Google where Ambedkar is regarded as chief architect.. And the questions on government exams! And this is after I explained that what other editors were looking for was the three best sources, not every possible source you can dredge up that ever referred to him that way. Valereee (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Valereee, I respectfully request you to reconsider unblocking me. After your suggestion, I provided another three best sources (apart from earlier sources), but there was no discussion on them before I was blocked. I am willing to follow all guidelines and contribute constructively. I don't called explicitly Ambedkar was the chief architect, i was here for something like 'he is widely regarded as the chief architect from starting of the discussion. Even if these legal scholar with reputable publishers, here will be considered as personal view then i will be ready for discussing the what the most reputable Tertiary source like Handbooks of Oxford, Cambridge, Routledge, Springer Nature say about him, if you allow me as right now discussion on RFC is going on. If you don't want me to involve in the current RFC then i will not participate. but pls unblock me as i don't involve in disruptive editing.

Regards. Callmehelper (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but for me it just went on too long, too disruptively, and other editors are still discussing the phrasing, so I don't think your input is really needed. If you like, you can give what you think are compelling sources to another editor who is making the same argument by opening a section at their user talk.

There are also instructions above for how to make an unblock request, maybe you can convince another admin. I'll warn you that reading, understanding, and following the guide to appealing blocks is absolutely crucial. Valereee (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Dear Adminstrators, i kindly request a review of my block.

The reason for my block is as follows- repeated attempts to get you to stop using non-RS, including 70-year-old sources, nonscholarly sources, sources that don't say what you're saying they say after multiple explanations; continuing with long walls of text afer multiple explanations and weak English communication.

* Now i would like to provide some background. The talk page discussion started because F&F removed the content i had added. then i initiated a discussion here. and in the discussion i gave sources, all of which were from post 2000s, however F&F argued that I had not provide any sources from before 2000 and he goes further by saying it's a recent trends of call him the chief architect then to counter this, i provided two sources from 1950s — Dhananjay Keer (1954, p. 397) and Michael Brecher (1959, p. 423), both are reputable and popular explicitly used the term "chief architect", however my intention was never to view these sources as most reputable because i know that the most recent decades scholarly book considered reputable the most. (i learned this from here), So whenever F&F said that he was not architect in 1950 then i showed him again the same sources from 1950s, but he never responded regarding these 1950s source or their credibility. but Valereee said in one of the reasons of blocking, that I repeatedly used 70 year old sources.

Another reason for my block was cited that I used non-scholarly sources. As far as i know that all sources that i used , very carefully chosen, are recent years and their authors and publishers are reputable (except that two 1950s source, which i presented as a counter) but still i do not understand which sources are considered non-scholarly explicitly ?
another reason was given that - sources that don't say what you're saying they say after multiple explanations - i want to know which source this reffer to. All sources that i quoted, i quoted from folder of books that i have in my phone. There is probably a misunderstanding here 1) as at one stance, Valereee said- i quote- Offhand, for instance, I'm seeing one source from 1954, and I'm seeing another that seems to be saying he was the principle architect of some reforms, not of the constitution itself. However source ststes;- These reforms only came into effect after Ambedkar resigned from the Cabinet in 1951. But he was their principal architect, as he was of the Constitution itself. 2) next accusation was made by F&F who claimed that i misquoted Calabresi and Britannica, but I didn't get a chance to respond as i got blocked before i could do so. I did not misquoted there because Calabresi said- Ambedkar is widely regarded as having been as the chief architect of constitution of India and Britannica said - As law minister (1947–51) and chief architect of India’s constitution (promulgated January 26, 1950), he also played a formative role in the structure of India’s government after its independence. - How i misquoted these sources?
Next two reason — Long wall of text and weak English skills; I can't say much on this because the defination of wall of text could be vary editor to editor. but when i see - "long wall of text", was an issue after that i made sure that i don't write long wall of text. However, it was still used as a reason for my blocking.

(TL:DR), Once i got blocked, i ask a clarification on the accusations but Valereee said that as you got a AE right now, where you would get your answer in better way from other admins. i waited and unfortunately there were no Admin participate and got archived now. Now I request the admins to pls open or look that AE, and give me a valid response on the accusations made against me, as i feel that reasons for my block are superficial because i neither abuse anyone nor misquoting any sources yet i got blocked from both - the article and the talk page. Pls review my blocking and if i did major blunders multiple times then i accept that i should be blocked, and if that's not the case then i kindly ask to unblock me. Even if i got adviced to not go for edit or talk page on Ambedkar for a few months then i will surely follow this advised.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Dear Adminstrators, i kindly request a review of my block.
::::::The reason for my block is as follows- ''repeated attempts to get you to stop using non-RS, including 70-year-old sources, nonscholarly sources, sources that don't say what you're saying they say after multiple explanations; continuing with long walls of text afer multiple explanations and weak English communication.'' 
:::::: * Now i would like to provide some background. The talk page discussion started because F&F removed the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._R._Ambedkar&diff=prev&oldid=1278074409 content i had added.] then i initiated a [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Callmehelper-20250228110500-Discussion|discussion here]]. and in the discussion i gave sources,  all of which were from post 2000s, however F&F argued that I [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Fowler&fowler-20250228172000-Vanamonde93-20250228170000|had not provide any sources from before 2000]] and he goes further by saying it's a [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Fowler&fowler-20250228180700-Fowler&fowler-20250228172000|recent trends of call him the chief architect]] then to counter this, i provided two sources from 1950s — [[Dhananjay Keer]] (1954, p. 397) and [[Michael Brecher]] (1959, p. 423), both are reputable and popular explicitly used the term "chief architect", however my intention was never to view these sources as most reputable because i know that the most recent decades scholarly book considered reputable the most. ([[Talk:Ahir#c-Fylindfotberserk-20250119103900-Callmehelper-20250119075800|i learned this from here]]), So whenever F&F said that [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Fowler&fowler-20250305065100-Srijanx22-20250305052800|he was not architect in 1950]] then i showed him again the same sources [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Callmehelper-20250305072300-Fowler&fowler-20250305065100|from 1950s]], but he never responded regarding these 1950s source or their credibility. but Valereee said in one of the reasons of blocking, that I ''repeatedly used 70 year old sources''. 
::::::* Another reason for my block was cited that I used non-scholarly sources. As far as i know that all sources that i used , very carefully chosen, are recent years and their authors and publishers are reputable (except that two 1950s source, which i presented as a counter) but still i do not understand which sources are considered non-scholarly explicitly ? 
::::::* another reason was given that - ''sources that don't say what you're saying they say after multiple explanations'' - i want to know which source this reffer to. All sources that i quoted, i quoted from folder of books that i have in my phone. There is probably a misunderstanding here 1) as at one stance, Valereee said- i quote- <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">Offhand, for instance, I'm seeing one source from 1954, and I'm seeing another that seems to be saying he was the principle architect of some reforms, not of the constitution [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Valereee-20250304201400-Callmehelper-20250304171500|itself]].</q> However source ststes;- <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">These reforms only came into effect after Ambedkar resigned from the Cabinet in 1951. But he was their principal architect, as he was of the Constitution [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Callmehelper-20250304171500-The decision|itself]].</q> 2) next accusation was made by F&F who claimed that i [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Fowler&fowler-20250305170700-Callmehelper-20250305163100|misquoted Calabresi and Britannica]], but I didn't get a chance to respond as i got blocked before i could do so. I did not misquoted there because  Calabresi said- <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">Ambedkar is widely regarded as having been as the chief architect of [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Callmehelper-20250305030800-The decision|constitution of India]]</q>  and Britannica said - <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">As law minister (1947–51) and chief architect of India’s constitution (promulgated January 26, 1950), he also played a formative role in the structure of India’s government after its independence.</q> - How i misquoted these sources? 
::::::* Next two reason — ''Long wall of text and weak English skills''; I can't say much on this because the defination of wall of text could be vary editor to editor. but when i see - "long wall of text", was an [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Valereee-20250304201400-Callmehelper-20250304171500|issue]] after that i made sure that i don't write long wall of text. However, it was still used as a reason for my blocking. 
::::::(TL:DR), Once i got blocked, i ask a clarification on the accusations but Valereee said that as you got a AE right now, where you would  get your answer in better way from other admins. i waited and unfortunately there were no Admin participate and got archived now. Now I request the admins to pls open or look that AE, and give me a valid response on the accusations made against me, as i feel that reasons for my block are superficial because i neither abuse anyone nor misquoting any sources yet i got blocked from both - the article and the talk page. Pls review my blocking and if i did major blunders multiple times then i accept that i should be blocked, and if that's not the case then i kindly ask to unblock me. Even if i got adviced to not go for edit or talk page on Ambedkar for a few months then i will surely follow this advised. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Dear Adminstrators, i kindly request a review of my block.
::::::The reason for my block is as follows- ''repeated attempts to get you to stop using non-RS, including 70-year-old sources, nonscholarly sources, sources that don't say what you're saying they say after multiple explanations; continuing with long walls of text afer multiple explanations and weak English communication.'' 
:::::: * Now i would like to provide some background. The talk page discussion started because F&F removed the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._R._Ambedkar&diff=prev&oldid=1278074409 content i had added.] then i initiated a [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Callmehelper-20250228110500-Discussion|discussion here]]. and in the discussion i gave sources,  all of which were from post 2000s, however F&F argued that I [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Fowler&fowler-20250228172000-Vanamonde93-20250228170000|had not provide any sources from before 2000]] and he goes further by saying it's a [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Fowler&fowler-20250228180700-Fowler&fowler-20250228172000|recent trends of call him the chief architect]] then to counter this, i provided two sources from 1950s — [[Dhananjay Keer]] (1954, p. 397) and [[Michael Brecher]] (1959, p. 423), both are reputable and popular explicitly used the term "chief architect", however my intention was never to view these sources as most reputable because i know that the most recent decades scholarly book considered reputable the most. ([[Talk:Ahir#c-Fylindfotberserk-20250119103900-Callmehelper-20250119075800|i learned this from here]]), So whenever F&F said that [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Fowler&fowler-20250305065100-Srijanx22-20250305052800|he was not architect in 1950]] then i showed him again the same sources [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Callmehelper-20250305072300-Fowler&fowler-20250305065100|from 1950s]], but he never responded regarding these 1950s source or their credibility. but Valereee said in one of the reasons of blocking, that I ''repeatedly used 70 year old sources''. 
::::::* Another reason for my block was cited that I used non-scholarly sources. As far as i know that all sources that i used , very carefully chosen, are recent years and their authors and publishers are reputable (except that two 1950s source, which i presented as a counter) but still i do not understand which sources are considered non-scholarly explicitly ? 
::::::* another reason was given that - ''sources that don't say what you're saying they say after multiple explanations'' - i want to know which source this reffer to. All sources that i quoted, i quoted from folder of books that i have in my phone. There is probably a misunderstanding here 1) as at one stance, Valereee said- i quote- <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">Offhand, for instance, I'm seeing one source from 1954, and I'm seeing another that seems to be saying he was the principle architect of some reforms, not of the constitution [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Valereee-20250304201400-Callmehelper-20250304171500|itself]].</q> However source ststes;- <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">These reforms only came into effect after Ambedkar resigned from the Cabinet in 1951. But he was their principal architect, as he was of the Constitution [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Callmehelper-20250304171500-The decision|itself]].</q> 2) next accusation was made by F&F who claimed that i [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Fowler&fowler-20250305170700-Callmehelper-20250305163100|misquoted Calabresi and Britannica]], but I didn't get a chance to respond as i got blocked before i could do so. I did not misquoted there because  Calabresi said- <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">Ambedkar is widely regarded as having been as the chief architect of [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Callmehelper-20250305030800-The decision|constitution of India]]</q>  and Britannica said - <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">As law minister (1947–51) and chief architect of India’s constitution (promulgated January 26, 1950), he also played a formative role in the structure of India’s government after its independence.</q> - How i misquoted these sources? 
::::::* Next two reason — ''Long wall of text and weak English skills''; I can't say much on this because the defination of wall of text could be vary editor to editor. but when i see - "long wall of text", was an [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Valereee-20250304201400-Callmehelper-20250304171500|issue]] after that i made sure that i don't write long wall of text. However, it was still used as a reason for my blocking. 
::::::(TL:DR), Once i got blocked, i ask a clarification on the accusations but Valereee said that as you got a AE right now, where you would  get your answer in better way from other admins. i waited and unfortunately there were no Admin participate and got archived now. Now I request the admins to pls open or look that AE, and give me a valid response on the accusations made against me, as i feel that reasons for my block are superficial because i neither abuse anyone nor misquoting any sources yet i got blocked from both - the article and the talk page. Pls review my blocking and if i did major blunders multiple times then i accept that i should be blocked, and if that's not the case then i kindly ask to unblock me. Even if i got adviced to not go for edit or talk page on Ambedkar for a few months then i will surely follow this advised. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Dear Adminstrators, i kindly request a review of my block.
::::::The reason for my block is as follows- ''repeated attempts to get you to stop using non-RS, including 70-year-old sources, nonscholarly sources, sources that don't say what you're saying they say after multiple explanations; continuing with long walls of text afer multiple explanations and weak English communication.'' 
:::::: * Now i would like to provide some background. The talk page discussion started because F&F removed the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._R._Ambedkar&diff=prev&oldid=1278074409 content i had added.] then i initiated a [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Callmehelper-20250228110500-Discussion|discussion here]]. and in the discussion i gave sources,  all of which were from post 2000s, however F&F argued that I [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Fowler&fowler-20250228172000-Vanamonde93-20250228170000|had not provide any sources from before 2000]] and he goes further by saying it's a [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Fowler&fowler-20250228180700-Fowler&fowler-20250228172000|recent trends of call him the chief architect]] then to counter this, i provided two sources from 1950s — [[Dhananjay Keer]] (1954, p. 397) and [[Michael Brecher]] (1959, p. 423), both are reputable and popular explicitly used the term "chief architect", however my intention was never to view these sources as most reputable because i know that the most recent decades scholarly book considered reputable the most. ([[Talk:Ahir#c-Fylindfotberserk-20250119103900-Callmehelper-20250119075800|i learned this from here]]), So whenever F&F said that [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Fowler&fowler-20250305065100-Srijanx22-20250305052800|he was not architect in 1950]] then i showed him again the same sources [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Callmehelper-20250305072300-Fowler&fowler-20250305065100|from 1950s]], but he never responded regarding these 1950s source or their credibility. but Valereee said in one of the reasons of blocking, that I ''repeatedly used 70 year old sources''. 
::::::* Another reason for my block was cited that I used non-scholarly sources. As far as i know that all sources that i used , very carefully chosen, are recent years and their authors and publishers are reputable (except that two 1950s source, which i presented as a counter) but still i do not understand which sources are considered non-scholarly explicitly ? 
::::::* another reason was given that - ''sources that don't say what you're saying they say after multiple explanations'' - i want to know which source this reffer to. All sources that i quoted, i quoted from folder of books that i have in my phone. There is probably a misunderstanding here 1) as at one stance, Valereee said- i quote- <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">Offhand, for instance, I'm seeing one source from 1954, and I'm seeing another that seems to be saying he was the principle architect of some reforms, not of the constitution [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Valereee-20250304201400-Callmehelper-20250304171500|itself]].</q> However source ststes;- <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">These reforms only came into effect after Ambedkar resigned from the Cabinet in 1951. But he was their principal architect, as he was of the Constitution [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Callmehelper-20250304171500-The decision|itself]].</q> 2) next accusation was made by F&F who claimed that i [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Fowler&fowler-20250305170700-Callmehelper-20250305163100|misquoted Calabresi and Britannica]], but I didn't get a chance to respond as i got blocked before i could do so. I did not misquoted there because  Calabresi said- <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">Ambedkar is widely regarded as having been as the chief architect of [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Callmehelper-20250305030800-The decision|constitution of India]]</q>  and Britannica said - <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">As law minister (1947–51) and chief architect of India’s constitution (promulgated January 26, 1950), he also played a formative role in the structure of India’s government after its independence.</q> - How i misquoted these sources? 
::::::* Next two reason — ''Long wall of text and weak English skills''; I can't say much on this because the defination of wall of text could be vary editor to editor. but when i see - "long wall of text", was an [[Talk:B. R. Ambedkar#c-Valereee-20250304201400-Callmehelper-20250304171500|issue]] after that i made sure that i don't write long wall of text. However, it was still used as a reason for my blocking. 
::::::(TL:DR), Once i got blocked, i ask a clarification on the accusations but Valereee said that as you got a AE right now, where you would  get your answer in better way from other admins. i waited and unfortunately there were no Admin participate and got archived now. Now I request the admins to pls open or look that AE, and give me a valid response on the accusations made against me, as i feel that reasons for my block are superficial because i neither abuse anyone nor misquoting any sources yet i got blocked from both - the article and the talk page. Pls review my blocking and if i did major blunders multiple times then i accept that i should be blocked, and if that's not the case then i kindly ask to unblock me. Even if i got adviced to not go for edit or talk page on Ambedkar for a few months then i will surely follow this advised. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Callmehelper (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock - Ever since the block was placed on them from Ambedkar 's article because of the RfC. They have made few edits and tried to basically evade the block in spirit by directly contacting the editor making their responses in the RfC and arguing over it[1], who told them that they should have atleast revealed that fact before contacting them.

[2]. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about AE

This message is made for notifying you about a discussion on WP:ARE#Callmehelper about your edits. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]