User talk:Abhinav686

February 2018

Hello, I'm Acebulf. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Upper Caste— because it did not appear constructive. 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. Acebulf (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were less than helpful because they were directly trying to inject opinionated information into an article, and by the process smearing members of a certain group that you seem to disagree with. Such content must be presented with citations, and in the most neutral tone possible. Please respond to me on my talk page if you want me to explain more. Acebulf (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have just done that particular edit again, along with a bunch of other contributions elsewhere that were lacking in any sourcing, let alone reliable sources. Please stop. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bhola Paswan Shastri, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bhola Paswan Shastri 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Sitush (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. Titodutta (contact) 11:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Upper Caste. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Titodutta (contact) 11:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starting over

Hi, please can you take the time to read the information at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:COI before you commence contributing here again. We cannot rely on your personal knowledge, regardless of whom you might claim to be. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Abhinav686 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20750 was submitted on Feb 27, 2018 11:53:45. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Waggers TALK 13:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Abhinav686 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Abhinav686 (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Doubling down on what got you blocked will not have you unblocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I wrote a truth which Wikipedia administrators wants to delete. Abhinav686 (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you wrote a load of opinionated caste-ist vitriol. We don't need people spreading hate. - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Abhinav686 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Abhinav686 (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given what you wrote below, the indefinite block is entirely appropriate. Note that I am not part of the Indian caste system at all. Entirely different race and nationality. Yamla (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I wrote only that whatever was already on Wikipedia NCRB.and highlight the cause for destruction in India upper caste that's it.you are going on blocking me because most administrators are of same caste.it's internationally criminalist.ok go on helping this Indian criminals. Abhinav686 (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Bishonen | talk 16:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]