User talk:Harshavardhanvarma

Welcome!

Hello, Harshavardhanvarma, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Raju have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Sitush (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm Sitush. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Raju, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Raju shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please go to Talk:Raju and explain why it is you think this complies with our policies? Specifically, those relating to verifiability, neutrality and reliable sources. I think you might also need to review our attitude to copyright - I've not actually checked but some of what you added looks suspiciously like it has just been copied directly from somewhere. Oh, and please note that source written by the so-called ethnographers of the British Raj - Matthew Sherring, William Crooke and suchlike - are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two days for edit warring, as you did at Raju. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:42, 21 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

According to Government of Andhra Pradesh and Government of India there is no caste by the name raju or rajulu,people in Andhra found it difficult to pronounce "Kshatriya",so they called them rajulu which means Kings by proffesion.if you see the state records you can find Kshatriya not Rajulu.Harshavardhanvarma (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It does not appear that you are addressing the direct reason for your block (edit warring). I am afraid I must decline to unblock you at this time. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:52, 21 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

when I edited I have given valid references below and I want to know why those are not considered,I want you check those references given my me as numbers[1],[2] and consider my unblock

Decline reason:

The validity or otherwise of the text and references you added is irrelevant - this block is about your behaviour, not about content. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:37, 21 March 2014 (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.

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dhananjaya gotra

The article Dhananjaya gotra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unsource and involves a lot of original research

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]