User talk:AlvaKedak

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, AlvaKedak! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you have questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AlvaKedak (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Invitation

Hello! AlvaKedak, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as
All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
- The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
- The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
- All sanctions previously imposed under SL, IPA, and GS/CASTE remain in force. In place of the original appeals rules for GS/CASTE, they may be modified or appealed under the same terms as Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. Users appealing such a legacy sanction should list "GS/CASTE" as the mechanism they were sanctioned under.
- Editors aware of the previous contentious topic or general sanction designations are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within a subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.
- Given the broad scope of this contentious topic designation, admins are encouraged to use targeted sanctions, such as topic bans from specific subtopics, before banning an editor from the area entirely.
The topic of Indian military history is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
WP:GSCASTE is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction.
Administrators are permitted to preemptively protect articles covered by WP:GSCASTE when there is a reasonable belief that they will be the target of disruption.
A consensus of admins at WP:AE may extend WP:ECR to subtopics of WP:ARBIPA if such a sanction is necessary to prevent disruption. Such extensions must be of a limited duration, not to exceed one year.
Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by contentious topic designation in the original India-Pakistan case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
1. Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy;
2. Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
3. There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
4. Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
5. The contentious topics procedure permits full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of the contentious topic designation – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs), Ekdalian (talk · contribs), and Extorc (talk · contribs) are admonished for their behavior in the topic of Indian military history and related caste issues.
AlvaKedak (talk · contribs), Akshaypatill (talk · contribs), Capitals00 (talk · contribs), Koshuri Sultan (talk · contribs), and Shakakarta (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from Indian military history and the history of castes in India, broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of these remedies, and every twelve months thereafter.
Dympies (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid breaches, even minor, of their topic ban.
Administrators are reminded that, when possible, topic bans should only be as broad as necessary to stop disruption. Some possible subtopics related to WP:ARBIPA are:
1. Specific time periods in Indian history, such as before or after the establishment of the British Raj or before or after the foundation of the Republic of India
2. Human activity in India
3. Indian entertainment, generally or in a specific language
4. Indian political, ethnic, religious, and caste topics
5. Hindu nationalism and opposition thereto
6. India–Pakistan relations
7. Indian WP:BLPs or biographies

Remedies that refer to WP:GSCASTE apply to social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal, even though GSCASTE was rescinded and folded into the contentious topic designation of South Asia.

For the Arbitration Committee, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history closed

Topic ban violations

AlvaKedak you must realise you are topic banned from Indian military and caste history, thus you shouldn't be making edits such as this or this. Continued violations can result in additional sanctions on your account. CharlesWain (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not know those redirects were included in the ban, I will avoid editing those from now on. Are forts included in the Topic Ban as well? AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are because they were used as military facilities. CharlesWain (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I will refrain from editing those topics moving forward.Thank you for the clarification AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AE warning

Hi AlvaKedak. I have closed the AE thread with the following logged warning: AlvaKedak is warned for four breaches, albeit minor, of their topic ban. They are advised that editors proceed at their own peril when they operate in topic areas closely related to an area they are banned from, and that especially in the early days of a topic ban it is a good idea to avoid these; repeated violations, even if accidental, may lead to blocks.

The four identified breaches were the two discussed above, this edit in which you explain the IMH ECR to a user (note that ECR enforcement is not a ban exception), and this edit where you edited text pertaining to Tipu Sultan's death in battle. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I understand, and I will avoid doing that, though it will be a bit hard because of how broad the topic ban is, that even affects articles about architecture. Especially since the edit conflicts were (at least to my knowledge) on a much narrower area of topics, though there seemed to be some spillover here and there (even into non-history related articles).

Regarding the edit in Tipu Sultan's Summer Palace, I had assumed that he was executed and not killed in battle, which is why I was okay with removing “Martyred” from the article (not an excuse, just a clarification).

Lastly, I do have 1 question, why is informing a new user (with less than 500 edits) about edit requests considered a violation? [1] The article was about a minor dynasty ruling in India, and the user wanted to expand the section about religion, nothing related to military history, so I am a bit confused as to why it was brought up. AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is why I used the phrase "proceed at their own peril": When you choose to edit close to the line, it's very easy to cross over the line, even in small ways, without realizing it. It's the same reason it's a good idea to drive with your wheels a few feet away from the edge of the road. So at Tipu Sultan's Summer Palace, you almost were just on the safe side of the line, but the mix-up over "martyred" shows just how easy it is to drift over that line. All it takes is one sentence referencing military history without your knowing so. That's why I and other editors often recommended a healthy buffer distance between your edits and your TBAN. There's lots of articles on Wikipedia not about India, and it might be better to stick to those at least for a while.

As to the ECP edit, the editor wanted to make an edit about castes, and you explained why they couldn't, which does fall under a topic ban from the history of castes in India. It's probably the most minor of the minor violations, and I don't think any admin would have sanctioned for it on its own, but it is a violation nonetheless. Again, easier to leave a healthy buffer between your edits and the TBAN subject, or little "lane departures" like that will add up. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ECP edit, is Jainism considered a caste and not a religion in (at least in this instance)?

Regarding the rest of what you said; I understand, I will try to maintain a buffer between my edits and the TBAN subject from now on. AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, that's a good point; I misread that as "Jats" just now, but that wasn't the reasoning I'd had initially. So I'll return to the reasoning I had in mind earlier, through which the end answer remains the same: You are topic-banned from Indian military and caste history, and you commented about the ECR for Indian military and caste history, so that is a violation that is simultaneously quite straightforward and quite minor. As you can see with how the thread played out, no one was considering even a logged warning for that, and personally if I saw that in the wild I would probably just look the other way. But it is still a violation when it comes down to it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand. The article was not solely about Indian military history or caste history, and the editor I responded to did not appear to be interested in editing content pertaining to those topics. So why is it considered a violation of the topic ban?

I apologize if I am causing any frustration because of this, I just want understand the situation as clearly as possible so that I can avoid repeating any such mistakes in the future. AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was protected under WP:GS/CASTE, so its protection is related to castes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So if an article is protected because of caste or military history related disruptions, I can not edit any section of that article even if the content I wanted to edit was not directly related to those topics? Is that correct? AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that would be categorically 100% true, but I think it would be true in the vast majority of cases, so it is probably best to treat all articles protected for Indian caste or military reasons as fully off-limits, yeah. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:48, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I will do that then. Thank you for clarifying. AɭʋaKʰedək (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Suralu Mud Palace has been accepted

Suralu Mud Palace, 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]