User talk:Mdfarooqiqbal

September 2021

As a reliable resource of Hindu is cited, so there is also a reliable resource of Siasat Urdu Daily.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Mir Osman Ali Khan, 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. Notfrompedro (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Mir Osman Ali Khan. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My source is a published reliable source that I quoted and hence it is not in any way violates Wikipedia policies. Thank You, Mdfarooqiqbal

Your recent editing history at Mir Osman Ali Khan 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. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Talk:Winston Churchill, you may be blocked from editing. Churchill is not even mentioned in the article that you want to use as a so-called source. Do not attempt to add unreliable sources to WP articles or your account will probably be blocked. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]