Jump to content

User talk:सत्यशोधक

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Ashishhjain)

Welcome!

[edit]

Hi, सत्यशोधक. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 08:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hi AshishHJain! I noticed your contributions to Kakatiya dynasty and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Sharkslayer87 (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kakatiya dynasty. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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. Hydrogenation (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Kakatiya dynasty 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. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kakatiya dynasty. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your propaganda. Else, you will be reported and blocked. AshishHJain (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AshishHJain reported by User:Sharkslayer87 (Result: ). Thank you. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Sharkslayer87. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kakatiya dynasty have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kakatiya dynasty, you may be blocked from editing. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have a long history of vandalism on Wikipedia. Stop your propaganda. Else you will be reported and blocked. सत्यशोधक (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kakatiya dynasty. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into this

[edit]

Hi Kautilya3, this user has been removing content from this page repeatedly and they keep saying they are removing propoganda and they are unwilling to listen to the other's view point. Can you please look into this. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions 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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit was not their language. They were Dravid. They were in no way related to Sanskrit. सत्यशोधक (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now stop reverting the changes सत्यशोधक. If you keep doing this, it won't go down well for you. Please read WP:RS and familiarize yourself with the policies of wikipedia. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user Sharkslayer87 has a long history of vandalism on Wikipedia. सत्यशोधक (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My history is transparent and everyone knows about it. Now please familiarise yourself with the polocies of wikipedia Sharkslayer87 (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User: Kautilya3. I awaited your response, but you didn't reply. So it's assumed that you had no profound reason to revert my edits on the concerned page.

The User: Sharkslayer87(talk) keeps on copying and pasting only the line "Information about Kakatiya dynasty also comes from Sanskrit texts" while insisting that Sanskrit was the language of Kakatiyas.

Now, take note of the following-

The Kakatiyas were Dravid. They were in no way related to Sanskrit.

Information about Kakatiya dynasty also comes from the Italian text of Marco Polo, but it doesn't mean Italian was their language.

Many Prakrit and Tamil inscriptions states about the Kakatiyas, but it doesn't mean that Prakrit and Tamil were their languages.

So, It's advised that you refrain from making interference without reasoning. सत्यशोधक (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary said "Please read foot note [c]". You have not responded to that in anyway. The footnote states that an official inscription of the dynasty was in Sanskrit, which indicates that Sanskrit was in use.
The kind of arguments you wrote in an edit sumary [1] constitute WP:OR. Moreover, when an edit is reverted you need to open a discussion on the article's talk page and achieve WP:CONSENSUS before reinstating your edit. Failure to so constitutes WP:edit warring and is sanctionable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive and religiously motivated editing, including the changing of quotes from actual sources.
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 ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Each edit of mine was an effort to stop vandalism, religious propaganda and lie. All my edits have sources. सत्यशोधक (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address your connection to Black Kite. Additionally, you need to show where you obtained consensus for your edits. What I see is a substantial proportion of your edits were reverted and I couldn't see where you obtained consensus. Yamla (talk)

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.

I didn't knew the policy. I'm still learning on Wikipedia. सत्यशोधक (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock सत्यशोधक (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

UTRS 50115

[edit]

UTRS appeal #50115 declined. noting user UTRS banned. Noting disdain user has for Wikipedia. Noting promise to send more sock puppets. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really, do read the UTRS ticket if user seeks unblocking here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I inserted nothing but the truth. And this truth went against the propaganda of a group active on Wikipedia. Also, I am not much experienced on Wikipedia, so didn't know the consensus thing. सत्यशोधक (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia does not claim to be the truth, and is not for people to spread what they deem to be the truth,, see WP:TRUTH. You have been disruptive and stated that you intend to continue to be disruptive with hundreds of sock accounts ready to go; these things demonstrate that you have no intention or interest in abiding by Wikipedia guidelines. For that reason, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't say I won't be abiding by the policies of Wikipedia. I only stated what I felt about my edits.सत्यशोधक (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Haven't read UTRS appeal because I don't have access to it, but user's petulant and defiant tone lend credibility to that account and do not make me think unblocking now would work out. If ever. — Daniel Case (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2022 (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.

You said you have "400+" members(accounts) with different IPs. If you have gone to that much trouble, it seems unlikely that you will follow guidelines. However, someone else will review your request, so you must convince them, not me. Truth fighters usually have a tough time here, as this is a collaborative effort. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:सत्यशोधक&oldid=1065802744"