Gadurr

October 2013

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Gaudiya Nritya because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can 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. Materialscientist (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Indian classical dance may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [== Dance forms ==

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Gadurr! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indian classical dance. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. —SpacemanSpiff 08:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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.  —SpacemanSpiff 08:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If you continue to indulge in copyright violations after your block expires, you will be reblocked. —SpacemanSpiff 09:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia to exclusively promote your company's objectives and a username in violation of our policies.. 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.  —SpacemanSpiff 10:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked because of asking for concrete evidence, where someone is thinking hes himself is the Sangeet Natak Akademi, moreover i gave my citation directly from the website of Ministry of culture... one with poor knowledge and inefficiency can delete others posts and citation, that person can stop others stating from their opinion, whatever fragile and flimsy evidence hes posting we have to accept that.. If we don't have power to speak ourselves, if one can act like hes the administrator of wikipedia then should we get onto an idea that Wikipedia doesnt allow to speak with evidence?, India is a republic and we are habituated with the independence of speaking if this the policy of Wikipedia that gives authority to some inefficient persons to block others, then sorry, we beg to differ

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for "asking for concrete evidence". Initially, you were blocked for edit warring, and the block was subsequently extended to indefinite because it became evident that this account exists to further the aims of a business for promotional purposes (A few of your own words for what you do are "Building a web presence" and "the reviver whom we are working with to give the recognition".) On the first point, it was explained to you that edit warring is unacceptable, and you were even told in bold letters, so that you wouldn't miss it "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." Wikipedia does not work by different editors, each of whom is convinced they are right, each reverting over and over again, until one gives up, so that the most stubborn and persistent editors get their way. You were told how to deal with disputes, you were told that continuing to edit war would be likely to lead to being blocked, and, aware of those two pieces of information, you chose to take the line which would lead to a block, not the one which might lead to an agreed settlement of the dispute. On the second point, Wikipedia is not a free service for advertisers, PR companies, and the like to promote their clients' interests, nor indeed to promote anything. Accounts that exist to "build a web presence" to "give recognition" to particular things, people, businesses, ideas, or anything else, or to help businesses "communicate with ...customer[s]" are acting contrary to Wikipedia policy, and are blocked indefinitely. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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.