Hello, Dagduba lokhande, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Please stop pushing your opinion that Navayana refers only to the Dalit Buddhist movement when in fact that is just one claim to Navayana status. Furthermore, stop adding links to "Navayana" converts when sources do not support them identifying as such. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And edits such as this do not appear to reflect the content of the article. You can't make things up, whether in categorisation or in the article proper. - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush Sir,

There is a difference between Navayana Buddhism and the Dalit Buddhist movement. Navanana is a Buddhist sect and the Dalit Buddhist movement is its movement. The Dalit Buddhist movement is also called the Neo Buddhist movement (or Neo Bauddha movement). Neo Buddhism means Navayana Buddhism. However, you have gathered both without changing the Buddhist sect and its Buddhist movement. Please, I request you, do not add a Buddhist sect redirection to the article of the Buddhist movement.

Neo-Buddhist, Neo Buddhism, Neo-Buddhism, Neo-Buddhists, Dalit Buddhism, Navabuddha, Navabuddha, Ambedkar Buddhist All of these pages are related to Navayana sect.

And the following pages are related to Dalit Buddhist movement - Indian Buddhist Movement, Dalit Buddhist Movement, Dalit Buddhist Movement. But You linked redirected pages of Navayana Buddhist sect to the Dalit Buddhist movement.

Dagduba lokhande (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Navayana article specifically says that the Dalit Buddhist movement is but one aspect of Navayana. Unless you can convince people that it is the only aspect and that Navayana is a more common usage than, say, neo-buddhist, you ain't going to get your way. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Marathi people. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been 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 notice boards.
• 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.

Your edits were either unsourced or misrepresented the source given and disrupted text-source integrity. Please do not add your personal opinions to this encylopedia and please read WP:OR, WP:BURDEN, WP:NPOV. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this talk page back to User talk:Dagduba lokhande from User talk:Dagduba Lokhande. Moving it away, as you did, can have peculiar consequences because the Dagduba Lokhande username is not registered. If you want to change your username, please use the facility outlined at WP:CHUS.

And, while I am here, I think you need to be made aware of the information in the following notice. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Indira Gandhi seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, 'The Greatest Indian' was an International Indian survey conducted in 2012, in which the results of the top 10 great Indians were Indira Gandhi's name. Indira Gandhi was one of the ten great Indians. I have the name of this survey in the 'See also' section of the Top 10 Great Indian Persons. I do not think it's mistake. Dagduba lokhande (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding images to the B. R. Ambedkar article. I've opened a thread on the talk page about the excessive use of the things as it is, without you adding more. Feel free to participate in that discussion and then, if you get consensus, propose which additional images should be inserted. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, sorry about added pictures. The pictures of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar were available on Wiki commons, I posted some important pictures on B. R. Ambedkar article. But I will not again put a picture in this article without discussion. Dagduba lokhande (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dagduba lokhande, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Sir, sorry about added pictures. The pictures of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar were available on Wiki commons, I posted some important pictures on B. R. Ambedkar article. But I will not again put a picture in this article without discussion. Dagduba lokhande (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at B. R. Ambedkar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sitush (talk) 10:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush sir, I did not make any reverts in this article. No further editing will be done in this article. Honor 'Mahatma' is available in Gandhi's article, 'Sardar' is available in Patel's article and 'Pandit' is also available in Nehru's article, I think that in Dr. Ambedkar's article, 'Babasaheb' should be the honour title. Ambedkar is notable Bodhisattva, but Therefore, I have not given 'Bodhisattva' but have only given honorary title 'Babasaheb', I request you, please do not delete them. Dagduba lokhande (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read WP:NCIN and WP:HONORIFIC. And stop this incessant Buddhist POV-pushing. Even the Ambedkar article says that only some people consider him to be a Bodhisattva and Babasaheb has no formal status as a title. - Sitush (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at BR Ambedkar.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not add your personal opinions to this encylopedia and please stop violating WP:OR, WP:BURDEN, WP:NPOV. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations or people is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for promotion. (WP:NOT) JimRenge (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing regarding Navayana is what you and प्रसाद साळवे are doing across a bunch of articles, along with generally often-poor comments about Ambedkar. If I see you add the word Navayana or, indeed, neo-Buddhist, to any article again without providing a rock-solid academic source, I will seek to have you banned from the topic area per our sanctions regime. You were informed of that regime on 7 August but were still doing it on the 10th, re-using truly dreadful sources. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Dagduba lokhande, thanks for creating List of Buddhist festivals!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This has been tagged for two issues: incomplete and unreferenced.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK sir. Dagduba lokhande (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that you are संदेश हिवाळे / Sandesh Hiwale now evading your block. THis is especially concerning because someone like Mahitgar came and vouched for you and asked about giving you the standard offer and was giving a guarantee that you will not behave in your old manner anymore. However, your behavior with this account is no different from the earlier two accounts. Please explain. —SpacemanSpiff 11:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not संदेश हिवाळे / Sandesh Hiwale. I'm Dagduba Lokhande and who told you that I am the Sandesh Hiwale? Here discuss only about my edits. If you do not like my edits, then I will not write to English Wikipedia. Dagduba lokhande (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• And this response above is a perfect example of the behavioral similarities. I think Mahitgar needs to know. —SpacemanSpiff 13:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you think. Dagduba lokhande (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: sir as per sandesh hiwale is concerned he is not using this account as he gives his words on the Marathi Wikipedia talkpage. If Dagduba lokhande is going against any policies of English wiki please deal with it strictly but saying that these two are the same is not fair. If there is any problem as if sandesh is using this account as sockpuppet please have a checkuser check on this two accounts. Thanking you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 06:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to History of Buddhism in India while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK sir. Dagduba lokhande (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic banned from anything related to B. R. Ambedkar (including family members), Buddhism, Caste in India, politics related to Dalits, broadly construed, applicable across the entire English Wikipedia, including but not limited to articles, templates, categories, images, user pages, drafts, portals, and their respective talk pages for a period of one year.

You have been sanctioned repeated disruptive editing in this area combined with a non-collaborative and confrontational attitude towards other editors

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. —SpacemanSpiff 10:53, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• These edits are in violation of your topic ban. Since it is the first time, I'm just leaving a warning here, if it recurs then you will be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 15:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dagduba lokhande. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits include B.R. Ambedkar and several Buddhist articles in violation of your topic ban. Please stop it. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I used the category required in the articles. Which articles used the wrong category?

Dagduba lokhande (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman, could you please help to explain the problem? JimRenge (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for topic ban violation on the page B. R. Ambedkar, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. —SpacemanSpiff 03:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

• You've already been told that you can't edit certain topics, yet we see [1] and[2] which are clear violations of your topic ban, the last time you violated your topic ban you were let off with a warning, if this happens again then your next block will be longer. —SpacemanSpiff 03:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a complaint filed against you, see:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dagduba_lokhande. Capitals00 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for 1 week, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. regentspark (comment) 19:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of things named after B. R. Ambedkar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Godric ki Kothri^{talk to me} 17:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dagduba lokhande. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dagduba lokhande. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]