User talk:Vikas.insan

Reverted your deletions at Dera Sacha Sauda

Greetings, I note you removed a large amount of critical material from Dera Sacha Sauda, with no explanation. If you have concerns about material, its sourcing, its presentation, etc., please express that at Talk:Dera Sacha Sauda. It is completely unacceptable to simply remove cited text with no discussion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I have reverted again (though I left off "controversial" since it was not well-sourced) as I do not think it is acceptable to remove controversies of historical note, even when the accused is found innocent, and also the sourcing did not support the word "all". I have explained this at Talk:Dera_Sacha_Sauda#Reverted_over-trimming_of_controversies, so I would appreciate your input there is you disagree. If we both continue to disagree, let us seek comment from WP:INDIA's noticeboard, or feel free to file there asking for outside opinion first. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with the "allegedly by force" being removed, since a) it doesn't clarify that it's mainly one publisher saying that and b) while Tehelka's "exposes" should be included they shouldn't be the predominant source. That said you have to explain your edits using the Edit Summary. Don't make major deletions without explaining them, even if you are indeed correct, as it looks (on a watchlist) like vandalism, other people will dive in to try and fix it, and an edit war ensues. Just give a very neutral, unemotional summary like "Item is only cited to one source, which is already heavily used in article" or something like that. I looked at it and agree with you, but since you had no explanation I had to go and look quite carefully at it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless

Please read this. And there is no point in uploading the same image time and time again. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will give you the benfit of the doubt on another upload timed two minutes after my message above. But if i see any more, I shall block you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Shah Mastana Ji Maharaj, Param Pita Shah Satnam Singh Ji Maharaj & Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan .JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Shah Mastana Ji Maharaj, Param Pita Shah Satnam Singh Ji Maharaj & Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan .JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Dera Sacha Sauda.gif

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Dera Sacha Sauda.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Please do not continue to upload files with missing or false information on their copyright status, as you did with File:Dera Sacha Sauda.gif. Please note that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Images and other media must only be uploaded if they meet the conditions stated in our image use policy, and if their provenance is clearly documented. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the copyright question page or on my talk page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Did you read my message at #Pointless above? Do you think I am justified in blocking you? Please reply. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't noticed the warnings regarding the image uploads. Though it was for the good of that article, I am doing that, so tell me what I need to provide for uploading the image, but I got this image from the internet so what I need to provide you, so that I can do that. And Please unblock me, I ensure you I will not breach any of the Wikipedia's T&C again. — Vikas.insan (talk · contribs) via e-mail

I find it mind boggling that despite uploading the image twelve (!) times you did not manage once to tell us where you found it. If you wish to use it in the article, you must go through the requesting copyright permission procedure. The copyright holder must be willing to release it under the CC-BY-SA or compatible licence and it should then be uploaded to the Commons. I have unblocked you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 13:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dera Sacha Sauda

Your recent editing history at Dera Sacha Sauda shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

And what is likewise important, your addition of promotional material to the article must stop. Wikipedia articles have to be written in neutral tone from a third-party and phrases like "hole humanity is thankful to Our revered Pitaji Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan, who constituted this unique welfare force society" have no place in an encyclopedia. I have reported you and Sarsathug for your edit warring on that article. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for the discussion. De728631 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and point-of-view pushing at Dera Sacha Sauda

Please see the result of a complaint about your edits at WP:AN3#User:Sarsathug and User:Vikas.insan reported by User:De728631 (Result: Block). If you make further reverts at Dera Sacha Sauda which suggest an inability to edit neutrally, you may be blocked for one month without further ado. To be on safe ground, you should propose your changes first on the talk page at Talk:Dera Sacha Sauda and then wait to see if consensus supports them. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I have reverted back to the October 11 2011 version of Dera Sacha Sauda and Ram Rahim Singh. I have left a clear explanation of my concerns at the DSS Talk page. The long and short of it: you are removing properly cited "negative" material, and adding flowery, primary-sourced, or clearly pro-DSS material. I'd be happy to discuss the matter if you're unclear on what is the right way to go about this, and of course your help in removing clearly vandalizing/defamatory material is helpful, but if you continue to use the article as a propaganda space the complaint against your editing will need to be revisited. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Dera Sacha Sauda. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for Long-term edit warring and POV-pushing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

See my above warning with a date of 7 December which I left pursuant to a complaint about your edits at the edit-warring noticeboard. You have continued to restore your preferred version of the article without trying to get support for your changes on the talk page, so I've gone ahead with the one month block that I mentioned there. See also the comments by MatthewVanitas and Dawn Bard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vikas.insan for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 weeks for Abusing Multiple Accounts while on block for Long-term edit warring and POV-pushing, as you did at Dera Sacha Sauda. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filed complaint regarding your editing at NPOV Noticeboard

Please see here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Tampering_by_advocates_of_Dera_Sacha_Sauda_.28Indian_religious_group.29 MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding you still disagree? please prove me wrong on talk page, then put it here. , I have already posted it on the Talk page, and received no reply there from you. You've shown a terrible tendency to demand explanations, then generally not reply to them, and then just ignore the explanations and do what you want anyway. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indef

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Long-term edit warring and POV-pushing at Dera Sacha Sauda. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

After this edit, It is safe to conclude that you are not listening to any of the advice you've received. Admins reviewing this block should take a look at the warnings previously given on this editor's page. Your last block was for six weeks, and we are running out of plausible options for a longer sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Shah Mastana Ji Maharaj, Param Pita Shah Satnam Singh Ji Maharaj & Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan .JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Shah Mastana Ji Maharaj, Param Pita Shah Satnam Singh Ji Maharaj & Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Ji Insan .JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 19:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Dera Sacha Sauda.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Dera Sacha Sauda.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 廣九直通車 (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Pita Ji.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Pita Ji.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 06:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]