User talk:Sapah3

Hello, Sapah3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Asian people did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @HiLo48:, thank you for your message. There is a source that uses the term "Monsoon Asia". I am not sure if this appropriate or not. I have reverted your edit again but if you don't agree you can revert it edit again and I can open a discussion at the talk page to achieve consensus. Thank you.(Sapah3 (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Brown Canadians, which you proposed for deletion. I've stated my reasons on Talk:Brown Canadians. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sapah3, thank you very much for your contributions. I'm a bit concerned about the frequency of your usage of "undo"/"revert", with detailed edit summaries instead of talk page discussion. Perhaps you could reconsider that approach. Thanks and best regards ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Nightfury 08:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sapah3, in response to your latest revision, where you state that the term desi applies strictly to Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis only, that is based on only sources 2 and 3. And source 2 is an opinion piece in a magazine targeted toward South Asians. If you look at source 1, Boy Culture: An Encyclopedia, it states that desi is a term that applies to South Asians living in the United States and UK. And it goes on to say that South Asians include Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Sri Lankans. Therefore, it makes sense that the term desi would apply to Sri Lankans living in the US/UK as well as the other three groups. In addition, while source 3, the Oxford Dictionary, states that desi is a term for Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis, the Oxford Learner's Dictionary includes those three groups and also Sri Lankans. Here is the link: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/desi_1:

Just something to think about. Thanks.174.140.115.206 (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)174.140.115.206 (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much for your comment. I understand what you are telling me but the general consensus is that Sri Lankans (and Nepalis) are not within the core definition of "desi". In regards to the first source it doesn't actually mention the term "Sri Lankan" so to infer that because Sri Lankans are South Asians they are "desi" would constitute original research and that's not allowed according to the rules of Wikipedia. Yes your source suggests Sri Lankans are "desi" but other sources (like the one listed on the Desi article page) don't. What we can see is that the term is open to opinion and the only thing we can do is understand that while some countries may be considered "desi" and others not, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh will always be considered "desi" no matter what context we use "desi" in. So that is why the article lede describes this reality by highlighting the fact that the term is subjective and that it is generally accepted that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are "desi" nations. I hope this helps you understand why the article has been written the way that it has been written. (Sapah3 (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your response. So it sounds like you're saying India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are always considered "desi" and other South Asian nations like Sri Lanka or Nepal may or may not be considered "desi" depending on whom you ask. Do I have that right? Thank you for your objective and balanced response to my question.174.140.115.206 (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your reply. Yes you are right. Thank you very much @174.140.115.206:, glad I was able to help. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Your recent editing history at British Asian shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You're both edit-warring. Stop. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the other editor has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. You can revert block evasion after the SPI has closed, don't just revert back-and-forth before that happens. Thanks! — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:54, 3 September 2020 (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).

Sapah3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Firstly, I was not made aware that there was an investigation against me. Secondly, AbsorbedLastage (talk · contribs) is a new user and the first thing they did on Wikipedia was open up an investigation against me. I am very confused as to why a new editor on Wikipedia would create an account solely to open up an investigation against another registered user. The user claimed I made edits on Sri Lankan Malays. Where did I make those edits? What I find strange about all of this is that there have been new users (such as Cope375 (talk · contribs) and MistyfelSR (talk · contribs) who have tried to come after me in the past (this is the latest example). What I find disappointing in all of this is that I have made constructive edits to Wikipedia the entire time I have been here, yet I have been blocked. Blocked after a new user created an account, opened up an investigation against me, as the first thing they did, and didn't even have the decency to notify me of the investigation on my talk page. Sapah3 (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely disturbing that a newly registered user has been looking at my edits, scouring the edit history of each of the pages I have edited and correlating them with IP addresses. I am deeply disturbed by that. For somebody who has spent time here on Wikipedia contributing to the development of this encyclopedia, I didn't expect a newly registered user, who has clearly stalked me for months, to cut me down and get me blocked. I don't know whether you will lift my block or not but I know that I would have continued to make constructive edits to Wikipedia with all of the new information I find online. (Sapah3 (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Decline reason:

This is just an ad hominem rant. I agree that it seems a bit suspicious that a new user would open a case against you, but we're not here to talk about that. We're here to talk about the evidence posted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sapah3. If you would like to address that, make another unblock request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:11, 17 November 2020 (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).

Sapah3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Firstly, AbsorbedLastage (talk · contribs) appears to be engaging in sockpuppetry themselves. The reason I say that is because it makes no sense for a new user to open up an investigation against another user when they have made no edits to Wikipedia. It's clear that AbsorbedLastage (talk · contribs) is another version of users, Cope375 (talk · contribs) and MistyfelSR (talk · contribs) - both of whom were blocked. Secondly, if you look at the edits made by the IP addresses that user listed, most of those edits (except for two edits I believe) are different to the edits made on my account. Yet that newly registered user accused me of WP:LOUTSOCK and WP:ILLEGIT. Please tell me how am I editing to mislead when my edits are completely different to the edits made on those IP addresses? Did the admin who blocked me, look at my edits and the edits made on those IP addresses? Secondly, none of the edits made on my account and the ones made by those IP addresses are problematic. What has happened is that a newly registered user has been stalking me for months and built up a case against me by correlating my edits on certain pages with edits made by IP addresses as a way to say that I am a threat to Wikipedia despite the fact that the edits aren't even the same. Blocking me indefinitely has only resulted in the loss of a genuine Wikipedia editor who has only contributed postively to this encylopedia. If you look through my edits you will see that I edit carefully and make good contributions to this encyclopedia. People have used the "thank you" function to thank me for the edits I have made. I read a lot of things and I like to share that knowledge by contributing to Wikipedia and I had new information to add from a book I read and I logged on only to find out that I was blocked. The disappointing thing in all of this is that newly registered user who appears to be the incarnation of two other blocked accounts and will contribute nothing to this encyclopedia has succeessfully blocked me. They've been trying to get me blocked for months and they finally did it even though my edits aren't even the same as the edits made on those IP addresses. (Sapah3 (talk) 10:27 am, Yesterday (UTC+0))

Decline reason:

When your unblock request is declined because instead of addressing the reasons for the block you attack another user (however legitimate you feel the attack to be), then it is not sensible to start a new unblock request with the same attack. Whatever grievance you have against another user for identifying you as someone who was abusing multiple accounts, you need to save that for the appropriate forum. The blocking admin is a CheckUser who has a tool that looks at various technical data - the data in your case has linked you with other accounts. The other accounts have been blocked, and your account has been blocked. Your account was originally blocked indefinitely, but that has been changed to just two weeks. After the two weeks have elapsed you will again be able to edit Wikipedia. But be aware that if you are caught using multiple accounts again, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. SilkTork (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2020 (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.

@SilkTork: a CheckUser wasn't used in the investigation. My account hasn't been linked with other accounts, the filer merely associated my account with IP addresses from Australia and the US and claimed I was a sockpuppet. The edits made on my account are not the same as the edits registered on those IP addresses. I haven't been using multiple accounts, I only have this account. Can you please tell me why I have been blocked? The edits on the IP addresses aren't the same as the edits on my accounts and I haven't committed anything that constitutes WP:LOUTSOCK or WP:ILLEGIT, yet I have been blocked. (Sapah3 (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

You are correct. Forgive me; I have been looking at some checkuser blocks, and assumed yours was one of them because you were blocked after a sockpuppet investigation. Let me look a bit more into your case. I tend to edit Wikipedia in short batches in between doing other things, so there may be some delay. I am about to stop editing Wikipedia for a little bit. If I haven't got back to you this afternoon, please ping me in case I forget. SilkTork (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't stop editing, I looked into it. Having looked more closely at your edits, I agree with the blocking admin that the similarities between your edit summaries and areas of interest is very close. There is of course a possibility that the other user is not you, but given what we can see, it is rather more likely than less that it is you. The only reasonable explanation is that someone with good knowledge of how sockpuppet investigations work has deliberately set you up in a clever and subtle manner. That's not something that can be easily resolved, and certainly not in this unblock request. However, if this sort of thing happens again when you resume editing after two weeks it could be looked into at that time with a CheckUser. For now, one way or the other, you just have to sit this one out. SilkTork (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Thanks for explaining everything to me. I shall wait for the two week block to expire. I just had one more question to ask, is there any posibility of moving accounts on Wikipedia? To elaborate, what I'm asking is whether there is a possibility to merge two different accounts together or changing the name or something along the lines of that in order to disassociate myself from all of this? I'm asking because I genuinely believe that this user will continue to come after me after this block expires. They came after me as an IP user earlier on in the year, using obscene language against me, and then as two registered users (which were later blocked) and now a fourth time as a newly registered user. The first time they registered an account they opened up an investigation against me and it was declared false. This is the second time they have done it. I don't think it's going to end and I feel like from now on, I'm just going get caught up in investigations where I'm declared a sockpuppet. I just want to continue adding new information to Wikipedia articles such as the new information I acquired from a journal I read about the Straits Chinese community and their role during the British colonial era. I don't think I'll be able to do any of this anymore because I think I'll just continue to get caught up in sockpuppet investigations being accused of things that I didn't do. I don't want to create another account because that will be breaking the rules so I'm interested to know if there is any other legal way to disassociate myself from this account as it currently stands. (Sapah3 (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

There are two ways open to you: Wikipedia:Clean start and Wikipedia:Changing username. By changing your name, everything remains the same - all your old edits are credited to you, and your old name will direct people to your new name. As such it would not throw off someone who had a vendetta against you, as they could quickly trace you. Doing a clean start, in which you retire this account (and do not return to it) and use a new account (and you couldn't do that until after this block is completed) would ensure that you would not be identified unless you returned to editing in the same areas and editing in the same way. If you did a clean start and yet carried on doing the same thing, you would be identified fairly quickly. While notifying ArbCom that you were doing a clean start would afford you some protection against a claim of sockpuppetry, it would not protect you against a malicious user who recognised you. The most effective way of protecting yourself would be a clean start followed by you editing away from the areas you are currently editing in. That may be something you are not prepared to do. It is not unusual for someone to have a vendetta against a user. See Wikipedia:How to deal with harassment and Wikipedia:Harassment for some advice on the matter. SilkTork (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Apologies for the late reply. Thank you very much for your reply and all the helpful information you have provided. I shall have a think about the options that are available and decide how I want to proceed. Also, thank you for the links about harassment, I shall have a look at them too. I appreciate the time you have spent to educate me on these topics. (Sapah3 (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  SilkTork (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have evaded your block and used a sleeper account (User talk:FloralRiver). You returned to making problematic edits. You have not been honest. If you wish to return to editing Wikipedia you must convince someone (not me) that you can be trusted, and you must reveal any other sleeper accounts you have. SilkTork (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]