User talk:Krao212

Welcome!

Hello, Krao212, 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 recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always 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.

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. regentspark (comment) 20:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

Doug Weller talk 18:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articel deletion

If you think an article should be deleted you need you wp:afd it. Deletion will not occur if you ask for it at the talk page of an article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Gotitbro. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 18:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Krao212, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Women in India have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 14:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apparition11 I missed your edit summary for the original revert that you had made. Thank you for describing it here.

October 2020

Please note that after I reverted your first edit on Women in India, in which you had taken out the word "Hindu" from the lead, the proper resolution per WP:BRD would have been to open a talk page thread on that page. I apologize for inadequately quoting Burton Stein. I have now expanded the quotation. The page numbers are 87 to 90. I have rephrased the sentence to be more nuanced and precise. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Slavery in India. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did at Coalition Against Genocide. using sources that fail WP:RS Doug Weller talk 18:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Sonal Shah (economist). 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 on that page. 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.

Krao212 As I understand, you are casting aspersions on the reliability of Tribune. yes it is a reliable source. If you are objecting to its reliability, you need to do that at WP:RSN Walrus Ji (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal warning

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Douglas Murray (author), 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. this was a wholesale revert of material that was based on a wealth of academic and journalistic sources, without any engagement with talk page or sincere attempt to improve page. Please refrain from deleting material without justification

Important Notice

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

Doug Weller talk 13:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you rant like this again, assume that you will get sanctioned. Last warning! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement

I have initiated a discussion about your edits. The thread may be found here. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Please read WP:TBAN to see what "topic banned" means.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction 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. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think this edit would be a violation of the TBAN broadly construed. Please be more careful next time. Best! Vikram Vincent 18:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that both these edits ([1], [2]) are violations of your topic ban. I'm leaving you a warning, rather than requesting a block, because you've been inactive for a while; but a further violation is likely to trigger a block. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: It seems as though Krao212 lacks the competence to comply with their TBAN; they've made thirteen edits since it was placed, and violated their TBAN with four of those, most recently today. A block seems necessary to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 19:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violation of your topic ban, after repeated warnings. note that your request for help appealing the ban came *before* the latest topic ban violation. oh, and "authoritarian neo-nazi" is the icing on the cake.

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 ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 25 February 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).

Krao212 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Outrageous block. Makes no sense to silence me because I did something you disagree with. People break rules all the time. Also, I'm a good editor. I use sources well and follow rules. You should look at my editing history from 1-1.5 years ago. I had some great edits. Krao212 (talk) 7:30 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Your unblock appeal does not address the reason (topic ban violations) for your block RegentsPark (comment) 00:35, 28 February 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.