Mehtar10
February 2020 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Chitral, 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. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
It took me a lot of time and effort to expand the Ethno Linguistic section. I gave credible citations and sources none of which were personal or original research but reliable proven sources. Mehtar10 (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Mehtar10, I've had a look at your additions to Chitral from a few weeks ago [1]. They have been reverted by Yamaguchi先生, and even though I mostly disagree with their explanation (most of the added content was certainly not original research), there was still one problem: copyright. Generally, we're not allowed to copy and paste text from published sources, and we aren't allowed to closely paraphrase either. When adding text to an article, its content should be based on the sources used, but its wording should be your own. – Uanfala (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
March 2020 edit
Your addition to Kho people has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
May 2020 edit
Your addition to Kho people has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
July 2020 edit
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Durand Line, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
July 2020 edit
Your recent editing history 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.
Your edit summaries too violate WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE. Zakaria1978 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
September 2020 edit
Hello, I'm 1997kB. I noticed that in this edit to Indus River, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello again, I see that you have reinstated the name again without providing any reliable source confirming it. Please do not add it again without any source. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948. 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 lose their editing privileges. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Discretionary 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.
--RegentsPark (comment) 12:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
September 2020 edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indus River; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:
- 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 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. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Indus River 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Vajrapani 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. JimRenge (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Refrain from using misleading edit summaries like you did here and don't use outdated sources from colonial times. Your use is also not proper, i.e. your sources do not support what you are attempting to add. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
October 2020 edit
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Kalash people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. LearnIndology (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Pakol. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
"Nomenclature" and POVPUSH edit
You have already been reverted multiple times by different experienced editors over your "nomenclature" and other generally WP:POVPUSH edits. You have already been noticed multiple warnings and alerts over your severely contentious edits yet you continue, if you do not desist now you are looking at serious blocks. Gotitbro (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
ANI notice edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring, personal attacks and severe battleground behavior by user. Thank you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban edit
The following topic ban now applies to you:
an indefinite ban from any edits relating to India or Pakistan. The ban applies to all pages in Wikipedia including articles, talk pages and noticeboards. The ban may be appealed after six months of trouble-free editing in other areas.
You have been sanctioned for edit warring, POV pushing and making aspersions against other editors
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.
If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Blocked edit
Mehtar10, if you don't understand what a topic ban is, you need to read the link you were urged to follow (WP:TBAN), and if you still don't understand, you should ask Doug Weller. I suppose a block may also help to make it more real to you. You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating your topic ban. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 12:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC).
And blocked again edit
I gave you a short block above in the hope that it would help you understand your topic ban, but it seems you still either don't understand or don't care. You have violated it again, here and here. I have blocked you for a month, and your next block is likely to be indefinite. See the section above for how to appeal the block. Bishonen | tålk 19:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: Every edit made by this editor since this last block violates the existing topic ban. Last one is from 27 July. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
July 2021 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)