User talk:Abhishek Parihar121

November 2021

Hello, I'm Ifnord. I noticed that you recently removed content from Harsha without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ifnord (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Harsha, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Dewritech (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Pamaria, you may be blocked from editing. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but I have not added any information, I have been removing lines that are not corroborated by academic research, but random sources. For eg KP Jaiswal doesn't mention any of the ideas that the author credits him for, on page 49. This is misleading, Abhishek Parihar121 (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is an inaccurate characterization of your recent edits to the Pamaria article, where you added new, unsourced content to that article. [1] With respect to content removals on other pages, I strongly suggest that you discuss your concerns on the respective article talk page to obtain consensus, as these are topic areas which are covered by discretionary sanctions due to disruptive editing patterns. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Rajput, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent further vandalism, as you did at Kalachuri_dynasty.

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 ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]