User talk:Rajput334

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Rajput334. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Sitush (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rajputs

Please accept my apologies for not realising that you have in fact been contributing here for a while. I've opened a discussion at Talk:List of Rajputs. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 1 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the List of Rajputs page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm Kethrus. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Rajput without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please 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. Thanks! --I am Kethrus ^{Talk to me!} 21:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed some content from Rajput without explaining why. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. It would be more productive if you open discussions on the talk page rather than reverting edits.John811jd (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i have provided the reason. the article is controversial and that's why written in line with Britannica. don't try to surpass Britannica. Rajput334 (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Rajput 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.
Take it to the article talk page, please. I'll be saying the same to the other disputant. Sitush (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sure sir i appreciate discussing at talk page, but controversial edits should be included after discussion not before it. regards. Rajput334 (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article talkpage

Rajput334, your lack of input on Talk:Rajput is quite worrying, especially in the middle of edit warring on the article, and even more especially considering your edit summary here. A user talkpage is not the right place to discuss article edits. The article talkpage is. That's the central place that people interested in the article will watch, and use; please don't disperse the discussion among individual user talkpages and make people chase around to find it. The principle is that discussion of the article should be seen by as many article editors as possible, so they can conveniently take part in it and give their opinions. Bishonen | talk 15:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

sir, i'll be discussing it over there now. but disputed edits should not be included before talk. thanks for guidance. Rajput334 (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit war

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rajput. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed by other contributors since beginning. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly remove sourced content. Thank you.John811jd (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not vandalism. - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editathon and Meetup invitations

Editathon Invitation

Celebrating Charlie Chaplin's film The Tramp at London's Cinema Museum, Kennington

This is a free event, one of a series of editathons which Wikimedia UK organises in conjunction with a variety of host organisations..

When? Saturday, 7 March 2014, 11am-4pm

Where? 2 Dugard Way (off Renfrew Road) London SE11 4TH.

Point of contact: Fabian Tompsett (fabian.tompsettwikimedia.org.uk) for Wikimedia UK.

Further details and Registration: Education Program:Wikimedia UK/Cinema Museum 2015 (Spring 2015)

Meetup Invitation

Hi Rajput334, You are cordially invited to an opportunity

to meet active Wikimedians in and around London face-to-face.

Description: Informal afternoon in a pub, children welcome.

When? Sunday, 8th March from 1 pm.

Where? Penderel's Oak, 283-288 High Holborn, London, WC1V 7HP.

Further details and check in: London 91

Hope to see you there, Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Rajput. Sitush (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been doing this a lot and it is tiresome. Please check the lengthy discussions at Talk:Rajput and do not unilaterally remove well-sourced and discussed material. As for Britannica, please see WP:TERTIARY and read the paragraph that preceded your addition. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop it, please. You got some good advice from Bishonen and yet still you are persisting in your attempts to sanitise the Rajput article. - Sitush (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not Akbar, how at all '17 out of 40' is relevant? And how can just one citation be enough for this? Furthermore the sub-heading is Rajput kingdoms not Rajput-Mughal alliances. Rajput334 (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Bishonen | talk 06:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Topic ban

I hereby topic ban you indefinitely from the topic of Rajput, which means from the article Rajput and all other pages related to Rajput, for persistent tendentious editing. Please see WP:TOPICBAN for a detailed explanation of what such a ban includes. If you violate the topic ban you will be blocked from editing. The sanction has been logged here, and can be appealed according to these instructions. Bishonen | talk 09:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Breach of topic ban

Rajput334, editing Talk:Rajput, as you did here, violates your topic ban. Talk:Rajput is obviously a page related to the topic of Rajput. I'm going to assume that you didn't see the ban notice above until after you had posted, so I won't sanction you for that. But if you should do it again, I will. Bishonen | talk 11:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

But why did u remove what I had posted. It was very relevant. And I posted it before reading your warning. Rajput334 (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you didn't yet know you had been topic-banned, but in fact you had been. That's why I removed it. Bishonen | talk 12:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked

Rajput334, considering your history, you must be extremely well aware of how socking and attempts at deception are regarded, and cannot plead ignorance. You have been blocked for a month for using IPs to evade your topic ban.[1] Next time, you'll be indeffed. 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 | talk 08:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked some more

Blocked indefinitely for persistent sock puppetry and disruption. Bishonen | talk 15:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Proposed deletion of Masood Chishti

The article Masood Chishti has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Υπογράφω (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Masood Chishti

The article Masood Chishti has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hasan Raza Pasha for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hasan Raza Pasha 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/Hasan Raza Pasha until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Masood Chishti for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Masood Chishti 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/Masood Chishti until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]