Hello, Abhishek0831996, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Padmapani Acharya. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issue resolved

Hello, Abhishek0831996. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Utcursch. I noticed that you recently removed some content from 1989 Bhagalpur violence without adequately 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; the removed content has been restored. 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. utcursch | talk 15:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm The Herald. Your recent edit to the page 2011 Census of India appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. The reverted edit can be found here. -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 18:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ayodhya dispute, 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 the sandbox for that. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Aam Aadmi Party, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 13:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Narendra Modi. You've received a number of warnings for a number of different disruptive tendencies: unsourced content, not leaving edit summaries, and disruptive editing. Please consider this a final warning for all of those issues, since you exhibited all of them in your edits to Narendra Modi. Removing content without explanation is disruptive; editing without edit-summaries is disruptive; and adding content not supported by a source is disruptive. Please stop, or you will be blocked. Vanamonde (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you ignore Vanamonde93's warning? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mahensingha. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Khateek have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. MahenSingha (Talk) 19:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  utcursch | talk 18:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is for removal of maintenance template without explanation [1] after NeilN gave you a final warning. Please use this time to go through Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. utcursch | talk 18:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abhishek0831996. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abhishek0831996. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abhishek0831996. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Utcursch. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests, 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 the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. utcursch | talk 15:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abhishek0831996, your recent good-faith edits broke several Wiki-links and the table sorting, so I have reverted them for now. But I'd be glad to discuss eventual concerns and possible improvements on article talk. It would also be helpful to avoid misunderstandings if you would use edit summaries for all substantial changes in content or structure. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Yamaguchi先生. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Harit Pradesh have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Haryana. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

—SpacemanSpiff 11:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mayo College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kangra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kumbhkarna is not incarnation of kaitabha or madhu. He is one of Jay / Vijaya. The other is Ravan's himself.

Please provide reference to what is posted about Madhu Kaitabha. Sagardineshbarve (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain your edit to the Third battle of Panipat??

• [2]
  

Your addition included no sources, and Kaushik Roy makes no mention of "Pyrrhic" victory.--Kansas Bear (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bhisham Sahni (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kamleshwar

Hindi literature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jhutha Sach

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Maharaja Ranjit Singh, from its old location at User:Abhishek0831996/Maharaja Ranjit Singh (TV series). This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maharaja Ranjit Singh (series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you explain this edit but your gross figure doesn't match the 49.29 crore in the source. Be more careful moving forward, please. And your change from Box Office India to Bollywood Hungama for the budget isn't much of an improvement, since both sources included print and advertising costs, which should not be factored into budget. Budget = cost of production only. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the India gross only Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Understand what constitute a personal attack, the comment of Nomian also pointed to the personal attack by the IP. Restoring blatant personal attacks (like "Stop being so thankless and dishonest to actual events of Bangladeshi history") on talk pages means you are contributing to the disruption and making the discussion uncivil. It also appears you are trying to disrupt the discussion by asking an unnecessary question which was already answered while the NPOV template had also been removed. Za-ari-masen (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We met at a bitter dispute spread over one talk, a handful of user talks and a couple of ANIs, not the best places to meet fellow editors. I regret my loss of cool, which I hope haven't damaged the possibility of you and I collaborating in future, on something. After all we are often interested in similar articles, and we all want to improve them to the best of our abilities. Maybe sometime we could have a beer together, or Y tea. It's better than beer, you know. Apologising again for all the badblood. Peace. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Have a good one! Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you left a ref tag ("ref name=Shailendra_1999") undefined here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of wars involving India

added links pointing to Macedonia and Licchavi

List of Indian battles

added a link pointing to Chola invasion of Kalinga

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we are nearing a consensus. Won't you make a comment now? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Rajput, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Here [3] Heba Aisha (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for removing your comments. It wasn't by mistake. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it was by mistake Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to understand what you meant by Maintaining timeline. Can you elaborate? Typically lists are maintained alphabetically as per the surnames. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean sequencing them according to their year of birth. Sorry for my English Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

== Removal of Historic Figure ==

Hello 0831996 recently a user removed the image of Prithviraj Chauhan even from List of Rajputs page kindly readd his photo Such things are misguidng at best ,This was well sourced its a request.Hardcore Legend Mic Foley.2409:4051:4E91:64BB:88FF:9047:F697:7CBF (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked Sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again Abhishek0831996 thanks for restoring info on List of Rajputs page anyway That user Again Remove Prithviraj Chauhan from list so keep that in ur watchlist.

• • One more point on page Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests the chronolgy order is absolutely wrong it mentions Prithviraj chauhan on last in Images like u did at List of Rajput plesase do on that too Soon and add Prithviraj chauhan on 1st Kumbha on 2nd Sanga on 3rd and so on, Also Kindly Add better description instead of this Add something like he unite Rajputs against Turkish invaders which he did.Please do its a request To mainatain timeline of rulers.2409:4051:4E91:64BB:BC7B:5AA9:7172:2AF4 (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll be making improvements on these pages. They're in my watchlist Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Great work in preventing vandalism in Wikipedia. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Abhishek0831996 (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Abhishek0831996 for barnstar u desever this mate. You have command over boring history.Hardcore Legend Mic Foley (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Chariotrider555 (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Actually I was in a hurry, will keep that in mind from now on. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prithviraj Chauhan has been removed again on List of Rajputs page kindly keep the page in Your watchlist.2409:4051:4E91:64BB:BC7B:5AA9:7172:2AF4 (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the source he provided tells that Rajput identity came into existence in 14th-15th century. I'm trying to find sources to refute claims till then I can't revert it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thiss was just a list oF rajput page and Tablot didnt said Prithviraj wasnt a Rajput She said he has been described as Rajput in bit later text Also this was brief list of Rajput Page why to remove a Figure who has been said Rajput by Satish Chandra,Jn Sarkar and many others ????

I am giving u a link to Kaushik Roy page which mention Prithviraj as a Rajput

Roy, Kaushik (2020-11-04). Military Thought of Asia: From the Bronze Age to the Information Age. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-21079-8. u will found it its a secondary source anyway By same token The term India Rajasthan Elepahnat all came in existence in later times anyway fetch my source.2409:4051:4E91:64BB:ED7C:9672:A699:F307 (talk) 05:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do now Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make proxy edits for a banned user. Ravensfire (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He informed me before I saw it myself. I would've anyway reverted it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other reason you want to give other than this Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides all the reasons he was originally blocked? Poor sources - Raj era sources, tertiary sources and yesterday tried to use a self-published source from a nobody they called a "historian". The blatent POV pushing and disregard for Wikipedia policies are plenty of reasons. Please don't proxy for a banned user, it can end with you blocked for supporting them. Showbiz doesn';t get it, but the best thing they can do for Wikipedia is not edit here. Strident POV warriors just don't end well and end up making the area so toxic good faith users stay away rather than deal with the massive disruption, drama and headaches of trying to put together a good, NPOV article. Ravensfire (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read more at WP:PROXYING. Ravensfire (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get over the proxy thing and go back to the page's edit history to see how many times I've tried to improve the page, so in future whenever I would've visited the page, I would've definitely gone into the discussion of why the name was removed. And calling Kaushik Roy a nobody shows your arrogance, he is a budding historian. Here's the link if you want to know who he is - www.jaduniv.edu.in/profile.php?uid=731. Just because wikipedia does not have an article on him makes him a nobody for you. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abhishek0831996 they call me a block user and what not what i only do is Informing u about these Biggots hijacking history and removing well established facts of History for Ur Kind Information They removed Prithviraj Chauhan name again from List of Rajputs no one trust wikipedia anyway these day but so misguiding info removing a figure who has been called Rajputs by everyone from Satish Chandra,JN Sarkar,Romila Thapar,Ifran haib and so on ,Hopefully u revert it and i am not blocked user its a Range which is blocked i just inform u again keep that in ur watchlist and many Rajput pages which have been hijacked, Good luck cheers.2401:4900:40A5:5437:B2DD:AF3D:6F5D:A978 (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

I provided u a source which clealry mention Prithviraj as a Rajput fact is I can give ton of More Sourced for the Same and Mentioning him On List of Rajput Page is no wrong either as I said almost every term Got its present day meaning today, And all Scholars of bygone time mention Prithviraj as Rajput it seems a Propganda to remove his name if possible reads it.2401:4900:40A5:5437:46ED:17B9:80DE:27DC (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Also source i gave mention PrithvirajVijay a contemparay text present About Rajputs,So how can Rajout dont exist during that time neither tablot said that way And User who removed it yesterday mostly Copypaste all stuff from other talk page And then paste it he himself has Zero knowledge of history and specially only change Rajput related page. The conversation he is having with u on talk page too Is copying the comments from Prithviraj Chauhan Talk page. Upto u how to tackle.2401:4900:40A5:5437:46ED:17B9:80DE:27DC (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Also,Raj era sources ????? I gave source of Kaushik Roy book which is 2 months Old,So how 2020 is still Raj era i dont know Next thing The book is Published by Routledge by Kaushik Roy how he is self claimed historian ???? Many of his books have been published even in Cambridge universty like on Hinduism and Warfare in South Asia,Tell me how he is a Self claimed historian as Usual if cant counter someone Fact say his sources as Tertiory,Raj era and what not anyway i wont even post message on Abhishek0831996 Talk page from now As i dont want him to be get blocked better remove all of them and Mention This community has no Past as They are already removing all of Rajput rulers especially famous one from everywhere. 2401:4900:40A5:5437:46ED:17B9:80DE:27DC (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the excuses given on talk page of Removal of Prithviraj clearly show agenda of New editors in recent past they said removing Bhatti ruler isnt right as He was not a notable Rajput ruler while Prithviraj was so we removed him,Anyway it seems a deliberate attempts to Remove famous And Well Established Rajput kings from everywhere as Possible, Like they did also mostly of their Talk are copypaste edits from other Talk page anyway If Rajput dont exist pruor to 16th century should remove everyone who born before 16th century Rana Kumbha,Rana Sanga,Bhatti ruler,Ratan Singh and So On also therr are several historians who conclude Rajput as Caste emerge in 12ty and 13th century itself most notably Brajadulal Chattopadhaya and Jadunath Sarkar.Satish Chandra,Thapar,Mohmmar Habib all mention him as Rajput so cant get point of removing him from Breif List of Rajputs Page.

Anyway I am yet to find a Historian in my 25 years of reading who said Prithviraj was not a Rajput ruler. Rajput related articles have been Hijacked by few in last 2 3 months. Anyway Dont try to engage with Talk wars with them see their history they mostly make fake claim of Consensus Despite getting overpowered by other sources, Thank u for trying to Revert but its no point in Wasting time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:40A9:D0C0:5EE6:30A7:124:309 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. After going through their recent edit history. It is pretty clear that they have an agenda against the community. They have also coined a half baked term Rajputization to further their agenda. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abhishek and other user,

Lukeemily and heba have a agenda and they started vandalising a single community pages.

I have been reading these pages and it is very disturbing. Even chariotrider is favouring them.

Take a look at the time they joined and look at the edits they habe made.

Mostly towards a single community please if you have authority or if you can contact proper authority please take down those pages and restore the previous.

Jbinsan (talk) 10:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abhishek0831996 The Users especially a group of users like Chariotder,Lukemily,Heba Aisha are really hijacking Rajput related articles best example is removing name of Prithviraj Chauhan on List of Rajputs Page further even removing Word Rajput wherever is possible even if it is present in source and there most commeon excuse if anyone reverts is Calling him Sock user,I am yet to make Wiki account but still They are backed up by Another User Ravensfire who even if anyone revert their edits revert them again. I cant find it other than Propaganda removing Name of Prithviraj Chauhan further more they do mention another Rajput ruler from Same time,If possible readd prithviraj name as he is well estbalished figure from Rajput Community,Also al historians Like Dasrath Sharma,Rv Somani who wrote about Chauhans call them Rajputs All of Major online enclyopedia mention him Rajput and even removing him from Brief List page seems a Clear agenda if possible u are senior user u can revert these edits.2401:4900:40BB:76AF:5AA5:ADC1:31F0:C58E (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding, I'm working on how to counter that narrative but it'll take some time, will surely try to get the original information back. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing! Wishing you and your loved ones a great next year and beyond. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abhishek0831996, I observe that u are a expert in History and very old reliable Editor but What I observe in recent times is that Rajputs related articles have been badly Tempered by a Group of Editors led by Charitoder they did as best as they could To reduce Rajput past as much as they Can,They are also backed up by Peoples like Ravensfire Recently they removed all Content of Rajput Confrontations with Arabas,Ghazanvids and Ghurids on Page of Rajput resistance to Muslim Conquests, Also they removed name of Prithviraja-III on List of Rajput page which was established from last 10 odd years, I just informed u as a Normal Subscriber of Wikipedia hope u undertstand my Concern Sir i wil be grateful.2401:4900:40BC:F18D:97AD:6FD6:DFB5:AE1F (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding, I'm working on how to counter that narrative but it'll take some time, will surely try to get the original information back. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996, No Problem take ur time but its very misguidng to remove all Content of Rajput resistance to Arabs,Ghaznavids and Ghurids and further Misusing Sources to satisfy their own Agenda. Just thought that Content removed from Rajputs resistance to Muslim Conquests was in hate and More of Jealousy further removal of Prithviraj Chauhan in List of Rajputs page Confirm that they only target popular rulers of race,Thanks for replying, Please Check out those 2 articles in near future Whenever u feel free.Thanks.2401:4900:40AE:618A:B599:E25C:BAFF:FCCA (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Showbiz826. Please stop making requests of editors. If you continue to edit, the next step is to take this to ANI to see about getting your range blocked because of repeated block evasion, edit-warring, genre-pushing and general disruptive edits. Your choice on how this needs to proceed. Ravensfire (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ranthambore.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to let you know that one of your recent contributions has been undone because it added the Good Article template to Battle of Dewair (1582), an article that has not been promoted by the Good Article Nomination process. If you believe that this article meets the Good Article Criteria, then you are encouraged to nominate it for review by following the Good Article nominating instructions. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Good Article Nominations talk page. Thank you. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other reason why you removed references to the prime minister's campaign rallies from the COVID-19 pandemic in India article as being among events cited as superspreaders? This statement is supported by sources, though I expanded it to acknowledge one of them saying the elections in general may have been issues too. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Highest ever recorded daily new cases in USA was 313,000^[1] not 403,000 as you claimed when undoing my edit. —CHANDLERMINH (tok!) 09:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChandlerMinh: Stop doing your own research. Enough reliable sources reported that US reported 403,359 cases on a single day in December. It includes Hindustan Times, Live Mint, US News which added that "The CDC figures do not necessarily reflect cases reported by individual states." You can't solely rely on website of CDC website, which itself notes that: "On December 18, 2020, Texas started reporting probable cases, which included 171,505 new probable cases, in addition to 13,253 confirmed cases, for a total of 184,758 new cases reported. This raised the total number of new cases in the US on December 18 to 403,359; without the influx of reporting from Texas, the daily new case count for the US would have been 231,854."[4] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel: As you said, there is enough reliable source that I cited which says that India has the the highest daily recorded new cases: Hindustan Times:

Sunday was the fifth day running that the single-day cases in the country have broken all previous global records.

^[2] Reuters:

country set a new global record of the most number of COVID-19 infections in a day.

^[3]and BBC:

India has recorded the highest one-day tally of new Covid-19 cases anywhere in the world - and the country's highest number of deaths over 24 hours.

^[4] Here is what Live Mint says:

India surpasses US to report world's largest single-day tally of covid cases

^[5] Also USNews said this on 23 April 2021:

India Records Highest Daily Coronavirus Count of Any Country

^[6] —CHANDLERMINH (tok!) 14:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChandlerMinh: We are allowed to second guess media reports once we have reason to and that reason exist in this case. Your best bet is to find report which dispute 403,359 cases of the US from a single day in December 2020 instead of repeating same sources that have obviously miscalculated the scenario. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel: The claim of 403,000 daily new cases in any particular day in 2020 December is not reflected in Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/United States medical cases chart. Aren’t we supposed to have a consensus across Wikipedia on statistics?. Why is the number being discussed here different than it is there? In the template not a single day in December 2020 is shown to be having more than 400K new cases. Correct me if I am wrong. —CHANDLERMINH (tok!) 19:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And your basis for your argument against this coverage is an editorial piece with obviously dissenting opinions ("we know, from painful experience, that lockdowns don’t work") rather than an objective finding that the gatherings have not led to spikes in the areas where they are being held. The citations included several major news organizations (Bloomberg, Reuters) does not make it "unsourced or poorly sourced" as specified by BLP. BLP does not say that negative information about living persons cannot be included at all, it must strictly abide by verifiability, the neutral point of view, and no original research. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abhishek, thanks for a great SPI report! Kautilya3 (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	hi saw that pic you uploaded on the wiki page on narayan dynasty, would be glad if you can tell me how you got that pic as i am also writing some blogs and want to upload some pics thanks Gaurav 3894 (talk) 06:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan and give your valuable inputs there as you were pinged by few users. Thanks 2402:8100:2164:DABC:E3B8:4EFD:D8B:A51C (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how User:Naveen Ramanathan is a sock diff? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: No. Sock is Mealiyta, the creator of the page.diff See Wikidata. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see; thanks. Yet, if someone else reverts your removal, pointing to the creator of the page as being a sock may not suffice. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

FDW777 (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Indian battles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jinji.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abhimanyu Singh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aks.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Nakul Kapoor, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DMySon (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no puffery in the edits you reverted on Madhubala. You even reverted so many important changes and references and left nothing but just a skeleton. I've spent 2 years in bringing that article from nothing to everything and it hurted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4053:498:1E60:19BB:17F8:E7A3:C1BA (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raja, Rasoi Aur Anya Kahaniyaan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rampur.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here. why did you rev thisNalasopara (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has comes to my attention that article about mountain Girnar. If you look at it it is highly biased and depicted as the sight only for Jain community. If you look at references too, you will find that many are not appropriate/proper. Unfortunately, I am not in the position to do anything about it as my changes are getting reverted. You seem like a good unbiased Wikipedia editor and supporter. Can you please take a deeper look at the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girnar ( You can see in the history that even your change got reverted right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannaray68 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kohra (estate)👇 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kohra_(estate) DrhSR (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please finish your sentence "In 2018, there were". Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up: It looks like a talk page discussion resulted in moving the page just a few months ago. It may be I’ll-advised to undo the results of that discussion unless there is evidence that consensus has changed. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, will read the long section tomorrow. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've been arguing your correct claim since March 5, at length and through what appears a large over four-month time sink. Thank you for your perseverance and persistence towards accuracy, and thanks again for the ping. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got curious about the actual content issue at the center of the dispute at the Gandhi article and started reading the Misinformation on lede section. But it's pretty long and interspersed with too much mudslinging that detracts from the content issue itself. So can I request you to give me a list of diffs (or just date and time-stamps of the posts, which I can then CTRL-F) that I should read to understand your side of the argument? I am looking only for posts like your first one, which mention or quote from specific sources and not the ones that interpret/debate those sources. Thanks for your help. Abecedare (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996, you've been here for quite some time, so you must be aware that you need to include reliable sources when adding content to articles, especially biographies of living persons. I've reverted your addition of personal info to the infobox at Sonia Singh as it was added without any reliably-sourced article content supporting its inclusion as is required by the policies I've linked to, as well as Template:Infobox person.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you used a sub-par source to restore the content, I want to ensure that you are aware of WP:TOI and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the additons. But since, as you may already know, that the article comes under contentious topics, just be extra careful when you all references. As you've been alerted before, Times of India is deemed as an unreliable source per WP:TOI and I have removed the citations and texts from TOI. So adding unreliable sources into a contentious topic can come under disruptive editing. Just a heads up about that. Feel free to add more on the controversy section (which IMO, was much needed), but with sources that are reliable. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TOI is semi-reliable. As per WP:TOI it is "considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable". That means you can avoid using it for the subjects where the dispute over the specific information exists. Finally, there is no case of "bias in favor of the Indian government" or accepting "payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage" with the sources that I have used so far. There is no problem with using these TOI references in my recent edits on Ram Mandir. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But when you are adding a controversy section in a contentious topic, you have to have the controversies backed up by multiple reliable sources. Simple as that. And there are multiple sources that are completely reliable which talks in detail about the controversies you have added. Hence, I urge you to take up on those, rather than a semi reliable/unreliable source as the sole citation for a controversy in a contentious topic. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. If you are interested, you can import a little bit more of referenced history from the Ram Janmbhoomi article to the ancient and medieval sub section of Ram Mandir until the events leading upto 1949. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is regarding this edit. The paragrah you added needs to be trimmed and reworded from Pant's perspective. At the moment it is from the the Mandir issue's perspective. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down to unreliable list on WP:ICTFSOURCES. Ctrl + F also helps, and you will see koimoi included in the list. Not reliable The following should not be considered reliable sources. If an otherwise reliable source attributes information to an unreliable source then that information is likewise unreliable. (see WP:FRUIT) Any "blog" of "blog"-type websites, in particular (see WP:BLOGS) Allindiansite.com Andhra Box Office Andhra Cafe Andhrakaburlu.com Assamtimes.org (discussed here) auditionform.in Bestoftheyear.in (see bestoftheyear.in) Bollymoviereviewz.com Bollyspice.com Bollywoodbubble.com Bollywoodlife.com (discussed here) bollywoodsociety.com (discussed here) Cinechicken (discussed here) Cinegoer.com Dailyhunt.in (blacklisted, discussed here) dailymovieupdates.com Dreamdth.com Greatandhra.com Filmibeat.com Indiaforums.com Indiglamour.com International Business Times by IBT Media (see WP:IBTIMES) Iwmbuzz.com (discussed here) Jan Bharat Times (discussed here) KeralaDaily Kollytalk.com Koimoi nettv4u.com Nowrunning.com Oneindia.in OpIndia (see WP:OPINDIA) Radio Sargam Republic TV (see WP:REPUBLICTV) Sacnilk.com (discussed here) Sahi Nahi (discussed here) serialupdates.me spicyonion.com streamingdue.com Televisionpost.com TellyChakkar (discussed here) Tellydhamaal.com Tellytadka.com Tellyupdates.com TheReviewMonk (discussed here) Upperstall.com RangersRus (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed at WP:ICTFFAQ. You can update WP:ICTFSOURCES by removing Koimoi from there. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer: Are we to follow WP:ICTFSOURCES or WP:ICTFFAQ? @Sid95Q: is koimoi reliable or unreliable? One page shows its unreliable and the other does not have it on the list. RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. RangersRus (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to Sri Lanka. This is a standard message to inform you that Sri Lanka is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Article 370 (film). 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Abhishek0831996. Thank you. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is the link.-Haani40 (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You were the applicant at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 31, and made the statement "This is contrary to the fact that admins should be so confident about their closure that they should not expect a DRV with regards to their closure" in your original application post.

A number of established editors have challenged this statement in good faith, and at least one has asked you (with a ping) to return to the debate to provide further elaboration. I note you have been actively editing, can you please look to engage with the question asked in response by Ravenswing at 09:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)? (Searcing that timestamp should allow you to find the comment easily.)

Alternatively, if you no longer stand by the statement, you are welcome to strike it out and therefore withdraw it, so that no further discussion regarding it needs to continue.

Regards
Daniel (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would have responded if someone could find any factual error in my statement, however, after reading the whole discussion I find that I had already made all of my important points and there is no need to respond to anyone as of now. Thanks. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question asked of you was, can you please show where in our policies and guidelines it says "This is contrary to the fact that admins should be so confident about their closure that they should not expect a DRV with regards to their closure" (or words to that effect). That is the question that you are being asked to respond to. Daniel (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is very much an observable fact that some deletion discussions, including about contentious topics, are contentious, and the editors on both sides of the deletion debate have strong opinions that they are right. Your stated fact would appear to mean that a closing admin should have sufficient power of persuasion that there is no questioning of the close. That is the factual error. Some of us think that you should be ready to defend your claim in the DRV where you made it. However, it was probably a throw-away comment having no value. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later tonight, I will be adding a different, and more comprehensive, version of the disputed lead sentences on Gandhi's last fast in Mahatma Gandhi, which will be supported by different sources, all published after 2022 by internationally recognized university presses. I will put up an "inuse" sign before I make my edits, which will not take me more than half an hour. I trust that you will not make any edits to he lead during this time, let alone revert my edits, as you did here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_comedy_anime you said:

Delete Most of the items are notable thus there is no serious issue. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I assume you are using a bot helper and clicked the delete instead of keep by mistake. Dream Focus 11:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Thanks for notifying. Initially I thought this should be deleted but later I felt it should remain. Thus, I forgot to change "delete" to "keep" when I completed my comment. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Ekdalian (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]