User talk:Liger1203
Welcome[edit]
|
Your edits to claim Rajput status at Banaphar while removing the current source have been contested. You also changed the source to say "Cynthia Talbot" and quoted her in the article, but we have no linked article about her and the source link still pointed to the original source. Please stop adding the Rajput claim until you can gain a consensus by discussion at the article talk page. Propose Cynthia Talbot there if you wish, and identify the actual source so that others can check it, but please wait for a consensus supporting the change you wish to make. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 | 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 South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - 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 these sanctions. 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. |
Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Edit warring[edit]
What part of "get a consensus first" do you not understand? What part of "that they are related to the Rajput warrior alha and udal" is not sufficient - related to Rajput warriors is not the same as saying the Banaphars are exclusively Rajput" (as I explained on the article talk page) do you not understand? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
September 2020[edit]
Your recent editing history at Banaphar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please don't edit war to push through your opinion. Also, please don't use sources from the Raj era, as you did here. They are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 11:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC). Bishonen | tålk 11:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC) |
Sockpuppet investigation[edit]
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ultimate survi, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)