User talk:172.125.126.89

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

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:

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) 16:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:The Discoverer that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not cast WP:aspersions on editors based on speculations. It is also improper to single them out based on their ethnic backgrounds. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Sanatan Sanstha 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@Kautilya3[edit]

Yes, I know exactly who you are or what you are. Why is it a warring edit or whatever WIKI jargon you throw? Looks like you merit a complaint yourself. So because of whatever three revert rule, or just because you said so, you will revert edits, even if the material is correct, and the original material is incorrect. It seems that egomaniacs like you are more interested in throwing their weight around, rather than ensure the accuracy of material quoted. I bet you are going to ask for a ban of some sort on me. Let me assure you that it means nothing to me. My life does not revolve around WIKI identities, fantasy inspired titles and roles and badges or whatever else. That is a poor substitute for those who lack validation in real life. When you do ban me I know I am right about you and hit a chord. Go ahead prove me right172.125.126.89 (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing 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 ~~~~}}.  —SpacemanSpiff 12:22, 18 September 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

The page in question is riddled with half-truths and selective reporting. While Indian newspapers are not uniform or accurate, the same event has multiple, often conflicting reports. Depending upon the slant one wishes to take or the inherent bias, or even because of genuine oversight, one can present a skewed view. The page Sanatan Sanstha has 4 sections on murders. All of the newsitems cited are inconclusive or contradictory. The 4 murders, alleged to be the handiwork of the group is already mentioned in controversies. It does not merit 4 separate paragraphs. One of them cites: " members exchanged emails looking for weapons" All that is fine, but that does not prove they pulled the trigger. If those emails were evidence, then those individuals should have been indicted and convicted. That did not happen. There are several Indian editors/authors who selectively pick material to be cited, any opposition to that is treated as edit warring etc. True my responses have been a personal and inflammatory. So let us put all that aside, let us make the corrections, then one of more account holder such your, a movie critic who was also inspired by a character from Calvin and Hobbes (Cyphoidbomb), or vandemonde look into it. Just because you folks have the so-called editing and blocking privileges do not abuse them. There are kooks out there, I agree but do not tar everyone with the same brush 172.125.126.89 (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring (and likely block evasion). It doesn't matter at all if your edits were correct. This does not give you permission to edit-war. If you wish to be unblocked, you need to address your edit warring and block evasion, and that's all. Yamla (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2017 (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.

172.125.126.89 (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shirish Kunder. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Diff: [1] Given your history of disruption at this article, your baseless removal of citation formatting is being considered vandalism, unless you can somehow formulate a good-faith argument for why you did that. Good luck. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm ToBeFree. I noticed that you made a comment in an edit summary at Bala V. Balachandran that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:172.125.126.89&oldid=1075937768"