User talk:Bharatiya Sanatani

February 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Hemantha. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Saffronisation, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In this series of edits, you changed multiple sentences to differ from the current references, and didn't add suitable refs for your changes. Hemantha (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, NCERT textbook controversies, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mattanur (State Assembly constituency), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Saffronisation, you may be blocked from editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Bharatiya Sanatani, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Vikram Sampath does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the introductory pages above

You're received very many warnings already, and seem to be ignoring all of them. Please read the various pages linked above, in the warnings and welcome message. In particular, you need to be more mindful of WP:V and WP:NPOV, or you risk being blocked. Consider this a final warning. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I was just about to click a 24h ARBIPA block (the latest Vivek Agnihotri edits as trigger) as well as repeated uncited/disruptive editing. I'll defer to you if you want to keep at a final-warning for now. DMacks (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: I have no hopes we can avoid a long-term block here; there've been precious few constructive edits. I'm uncertain of English competence, though, so I had wondered if a plain, non-template message might have a salutory effect. I have no objections whatsoever to a block; I left a message in part because I felt disinclined to file AE paperwork shortly before logging off. This edit was pretty awful too, FYI. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the added data-point. Enjoy your off-line time! I'll hold off for now because I too need to get some sleep. DMacks (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks Please expedite the inevitable: this user exhibits no sign of relenting. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Hello, I'm Venkat TL. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:2022 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Rudauli (Assembly constituency). Venkat TL (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2022 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Venkat TL (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Barabanki (Assembly constituency). Venkat TL (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2021 Chandigarh Municipal Corporation election, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Barabanki (Assembly constituency). Venkat TL (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 Bangalore riots. The source clearly states that the protest turned violent instead of the intention being attack in the first place. >>> Extorc.talk(); 13:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

2022 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election

added links pointing to Banda, Hamirpur, Lalitpur, Mau, Kaushambi, Jaunpur, Basti, Fatehpur, Maharajganj, Gonda, Deoria and Chitrakoot

2015 Bihar Legislative Assembly election

added links pointing to Gaya, Banka, Kaimur, Gopalganj, Bhojpur and Madhubani

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General Sanctions alert

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 South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

Venkat TL (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Confirmed status

Hello, your extended confirmed access has been revoked; it is clear you were gaming the system in order to get access.

Some of your prior non-productive edits may have been deleted or your sandbox reset - this may help you keep track of your legitimate current edits. Per recent precedents these are the methods for you to restore extended-confirmed status:

Avoid making any edits in topics restricted to extended confirmed users, and acquire 500 legitimate other edits; THEN:
Appeal to me on my talk page. Alternately, you may

Apply at WP:PERM/EC

Primefac (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Merely removing your extended confirmed access for such blatant gaming of our rules was a very mild sanction. In view of that, and of all the warnings you have received before, and specifically of this tendentious edit today, which goes against the cited source, I have blocked you indefinitely. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 15:52, 7 March 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

It is requested to the administrators that I ensure you that (1)I will avoid controversial and disputed topics like saffronisation and 2020 Bangalore Riots , or trying to do a edit which goes against the cited sources.

(2) I will always ensure that my edits are constructive and supported by unbiased, undisputed and reliable sources and will avoid .

(3) Always avoid engaging in an Edit war or any editorial disputes.

(4) Assure no gaming with system.

Thankyou

Decline reason:

I'm skeptical that you've suddenly seen the light on this. It's almost an impossibility to avoid editorial disputes- the key is not avoiding disputes, but handling them properly. There's no such thing as unbiased sources, everyone has a bias- but sources should be reliable sources and not throw the bias in people's faces. Avoiding the controversial topic areas is a start, but now you will need to tell us what topics you will edit about instead. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

@331dot Sir, My Topic for edits will be electoral results data entry only which generally never end in a dispute or edit wars, but are results published by the polling agency only. They don't require any secondary or any review about neutrality or point of view sir.

Decline reason:

An appeal needs to at least acknowledge the reason for the block. Johnuniq (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2022 (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.

Someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]