User talk:Vishwajeet103
Welcome
[edit]
|
July 2020
[edit]
Hi Vishwajeet103! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Ghaggar-Hakra River, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ghaggar-Hakra River. 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. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- 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 noticeboards.
- 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, as you did at Sarasvati River, you may be blocked from editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
DS-alert
[edit]
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.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
January 2021
[edit] Please stop your disruptive editing.
- 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 noticeboards.
- 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, as you did at Sarasvati River, you may be blocked from editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sarasvati River. Chariotrider555 (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- You need to stop your attack on the Saraswati River page. Or you will end up at Arbitration Enfocement. Use the talk page to raise your issues and seek WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 09:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Vishwajeet103 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked for discussing edits with user Kautilya3 on Sarasvati page on the validity of self published blogs and neutrality point of view violation by quoting opinions of authors as facts. He responded by saying that "discuss on talk page". After that I did not even have a chance to discuss on talk page before I was blocked. Please unblock me! I will discuss on talk page before adding further tagged comments on page. Vishwajeet103 (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The lack of discussion is not the only reason you were blocked, and not the most important, either. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
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.
Vishwajeet103 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As far Hindutva page is considered, I did not even edit the page after the first citation tag was removed by Kautilya3, I merely discussed on Kautilya3 talk page on that cow urine having no scientific backing is not true, because there are recent research papers discussing. He did not engage with me after one follow up comment.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
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.
Vishwajeet103 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
How I am supposed to know for what I am blocked, when I was not told before being blocked. I had got warning for Sarasvati River page, for which I have explained, and also assured that I am going to discuss in talk page. In fact, after 2 warnings, I made no edits in the page. At first I did major edits, I got a warning; then I did minor edits of adding citation tags, again after which I received the warning, after that I made a constructive edit which even got resolved. Now for other concerns on the page, I was going to discuss in talk page; but I got no chance before I was blocked. I assure, next time I will not edit or put tags in controversial articles, before discussing on talk page and seeking consensus. I also assure that I will first do constructive editing in my fields of expertise, before going into controversial issues. As for the blame on me on pushing unreliable sources is concerned, it appears baseless because I have not added any new material or reference in the Sarasvati River or Hindutva page; in fact I was questioning the opinions of fringe groups that are not associated with mainstream science being pushed in Sarasvati River; specifically Ashoke Mukherjee article published in a fringe society called Breakthrough Science which is not recognized by mainstream is being quoted multiple times in the Sarasvati River page, and an entire paragraph devoted to his arguments.
Decline reason:
"You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent tendentious editing, pushing pseudoscience and unreliable sources, ignoring warnings and violating WP:MEDRS.
" That seems pretty clear to me. To be unblocked, you need to understand why you were blocked in the first place. How are you going to follow the rules if you don't understand them? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
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.