User talk:Pakmanuk786

Welcome!

Hello, Pakmanuk786, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Rani Padmini. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 14:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Hello, I'm Dan Koehl. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rani Padmini have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm The Mighty Glen. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rani Padmini 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 the 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. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Rani Padmini. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. You've definitely done this more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. It can get you blocked. The proper thing to do is go to the article's talk page and try to achieve a consensus for the change. here. Just click on the tab at the top of the page marked "New section". Be sure to sign your post with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. David in DC (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rani Padmini. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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; 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. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Rani Padmini shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 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.
You need to discuss this on the talk page. If you keep fighting you will get a long block. WP:3RR is a maximum, and if you were reported you would get a significant length of block. I count 7 or 8 reverts there. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the religion of invader more important than the name?

I have stated previously that this was a mistake or change. Maybe I should have been more clear, even though the change.i made wasn't in anyway derogatory. My first change was to remove Muslim and replace with the Sultan of Delhi, which directly explained who the invader was, I think this was rather more relevant than just a "Muslim invader" which means the identity of the person wasn't known just his religion. However his identity is known, and his name was added. This seemed to be unacceptable and "Muslim" was a requirement. So I used "an invader" this would again highlight the point Aswell. For an unknown reason many users where adamant the name of the invader wasn't pertinent but the religion was. I'm hoping this will explain the reason for the change. If any wishes to add the name of the invader fanstastic, his religion has no bearing on the story, unless it's being intimated that because the Sultan was a Muslim the invasion took place, and his religion was to blame not him as man.. thank you for your time. Pakmanuk786 (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a perfectly reasonable question to ask at Talk:Rani Padmini, and getting WP:CONSENSUS for the change you're proposing. Edit-warring is not allowed on Wikipedia. I have no opinion on the matter myself, but other editors certainly will. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answers

There have been alot of people very quick to make changes, not happy with having the sultans name but having "Muslim" I have asked a question and one person has had the decency to respond... Seems the issue was never the naming the man / invader but maybe to have invader and Muslim in the sentence. Pakmanuk786 (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2018 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pakmanuk786 reported by User:The Mighty Glen (Result: ). Thank you. The Mighty Glen (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Rani Padmini. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good start for you on Wikipedia. If you were an experienced editor this block would be much longer. If a change of yours is challenged then you need to stop, explain your position using the talk page, and wait for consensus to form. Repeating the same behavior after your block expires will result in a much longer block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]