User talk:Dm51c

January 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Radha has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Radha was changed by Dm51c (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.856478 on 2015-01-25T15:46:26+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Excesses. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Radha without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ~Excesses~ (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Krishna, did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mayur ^{(talk•Email)} 06:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caution: WP:3RR

@Dm51c: please review the 3RR guideline. Requesting your patience, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Krishna. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. JRDkg (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Krishna, you may be blocked from editing. JRDkg (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. JRDkg (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Krishna. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. User3749 (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Krishna) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:47, 27 January 2021 (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).

Dm51c (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

hi @osawa, i know Wikipedia policies but this article main thrust is for religious god or deity and Wikipedia policy allows presenting the info which is true to the tenets of religion, instead of checking whether that tenet is scientifically plausible As the central thrust of this article is Krishna as a deity. so I have changed born and died which are used for mortals to avatar-birth and avatar end which are more neutral description as per Hinduism, i have also added sources and always mentioned the reasons. i have also added the reasons in talk page but the other guy @JRDkj is continuously reverting my good faith edits and accusing me of vandalizing. please unblock meDm51c (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You seem to be arguing that your edits were correct, and therefore an exception to WP:EW. But each side in an edit war thinks their edits are correct, so this is not an excuse. Instead, you need to show that you had established a consensus for your edits on the article's talk page. Yamla (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2021 (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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Krishna) for edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 08:16, 31 January 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. — Newslinger talk 08:17, 31 January 2021 (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).

Dm51c (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the other user is continuously reverting my edits backed by sources. They are backed my near-unanimous opinion related to the wider traditions and ha have added numerous sources. this blocking is not fair. its JRDkg who is getting personal and is the only one who is reverting my edits and wants to have his own factually incorrect content. Its he who is doing vandalism. i am disappointed by this block. It was also discussed in talk page, i have mentioned several reasons for change, i know that getting consensus from lot of other users take time,some have implicitly agreed to my changes if backed my sources, i have mentioned many but other user is impatient in continuously reverting my edits. hope i will be unblocked. Dm51c (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please read WP:NOTTHEM. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:42, 31 January 2021 (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.

unblock request

Moved from User talk:Newslinger § unblock request

– — Newslinger talk 09:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the other user is continuously reverting my edits backed by sources. They are backed my near-unanimous opinion related to the wider traditions and ha have added numerous sources. this blocking is not fair. its JRDkg who is getting personal and is the only one who is squarely reverting my edits and wants to have his own factually incorrect content. Its he who is doing vandalism. i am disappointed by this block. It was also discussed in talk page, i have mentioned several reasons for change, i know that getting consensus from lot of other users take time,some have implicitly agreed to my changes if backed my sources, i have provided many sources and given elaborate reason n talk page. id dont want to get personal but that user has a problem in accusing anyone of vandalization if it's according to what he want.

hope i will be unblocked.Dm51c (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. Your unblock request at User talk:Dm51c § January 2021 had already been declined by Voice of Clam, and I agree with their decision. In Special:Diff/1003825318, and Special:Diff/1003908338, you continued to edit war on the Krishna article immediately after your previous block for edit warring expired. Unblock requests must focus on your own actions, not the actions of other editors. Please see the guide to appealing a block for advice. I recommend editing in less controversial topic areas before requesting another unblock. The guide on dispute resolution and the policy against edit warring outlines some of the expectations for editing on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 09:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger:Then why the other user is not blocked as its he who started the edit war by squarelry reverting edits . No other user has explicit problem with my changes. Infact one has said it has no problem with the changed terms. Wikedpedia has policy of not unnecesary reverting edits if it doesnt add up to his opinion. I am not at all vandalizing. Infact its i who suggested to the modify other content who are sourced from news article which he removed later. He reverted at least my 6 edits my using the farce of the 'word vandalism' as he have an alternate opionion which is technically wrong as you can see in the discussuon in talk page Correcting article to be more neutral is not vandalism . Its he who should be blocked by you administrator as he started the edit warring. Dm51c (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your series of edits at Special:Diff/1001765549/1002866401 was the action that triggered the edit war. When those edits were reverted, the correct action would have been to discuss the edits on the talk page, instead of immediately reinstating them without consensus. Your current block is based on Special:Diff/1003825318 and Special:Diff/1003908338, in which you resumed the edit war immediately after your previous block for edit warring expired. In the edit summary of Special:Diff/1003908338, you also improperly referred to JRDkg's edit as "vandalism". Please refer to the bold, revert, discuss process for the recommended way to resolve content disputes in articles. You are still free to participate in the talk page discussion at Talk:Krishna, as long as you adhere to the policies and guidelines. — Newslinger talk 02:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]