User talk:Bhumihar brahmin

Bhumihar brahmin, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Bhumihar brahmin! 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! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Bhumihar brahmin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Bhumihar have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- L o g X 17:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Bhumihar. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please 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. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bhumihar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- L o g X 19:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

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

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Ruby Murray 12:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reference problem List of Bhumihar Brahmin states

< Cite error: The named reference <ref name="Bayly"/> was invoked but never defined see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Bhumihar_brahmin

Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names.

[ Here] you added a new reference but didn't define it. This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. "Cite error: The named reference REFNAME was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks -- Frze ^{> talk} 13:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bhumihar Brahmin states

I've no idea why you created List of Bhumihar Brahmin states but unless the sourcing and detail improves quickly, it is likely to be merged into Bhumihar Brahmin. Aside from the obvious need for page numbers in your citations, we really need to give the reader some sort of idea of (a) whether those in control were zamindars or not and (b) the span of years that they were in control. It looks a bit like an attempt at caste POV-pushing at the moment - making something out of not a lot - and I'm concerned because you have been trying to promote the cause of the Bhumihar community for some months now. Wikipedia does not exist to promote the interests or vanity etc of any group.

I removed all of the unlinked and unsourced entries from your list. Please see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NLIST. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to talk about this if you want to carry on developing the article. Just adding more rubbish is unhelpful. Please could you take some time to read WP:V and WP:NLIST, both of which are applicable to what you are trying to do. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HI sitush my brother do not do this you again and again reverting my edits. think how can i refernced every thing.these information are true but you know i can not provide refrence or books for every thing.ok do not revert again thankyou for your support.

Proposed deletion of Lalgola raj

The article Lalgola raj has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced, notability not evident

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WWGB (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lalgola raj for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lalgola raj is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lalgola raj until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JMHamo (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Singhabad Raj

Hello, Bhumihar brahmin,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Singhabad Raj should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singhabad Raj .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Wgolf (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Singhabad Raj

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Singhabad Raj, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and personal attacks, as you did at Bhumihar. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not providing wrong information,some peoples always try to disturb the article bhumihar thier is very dirty information about bhumihar due to jealousy please unblock me

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:36, 25 June 2014 (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.

Please note

Even your unblock request is an attack on other editors. As you have been blocked for edit warring, when your block expires you need to use the article talk page to get agreement for the changes you want. Note that 4 editors reverted you (including me). Please also understand that if you want to add information, you need to source it following our guidelines and policies - read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. If you add unsourced material that other editors revert, it is your responsibility to source it. Believing that you are right is not enough. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]