User talk:KnowledgeHunter9090

June 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm 245CMR. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Markandeya, 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. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. .245CMR.•^👥📜 14:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the source right? The descendants of Markendeya are padmashalis . How to add link in tge table ? In the childeen column can you guide me? KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you soo much,i will check out that tutorial. Very helpful . KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay,thank you for explaining ,I will consider it .sorry. KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Indigenous Aryanism 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do the edit war it's the other person named https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skllagyook Who engaged in edit war and reverted it back to the original source . KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DS-alert[edit]

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.

Re Edit warring at Indigenous Aryanism[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. Skllagyook (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently edit warring at Indigenous Aryanism and ignoring the explanations given in edit summaries as well as repeatedly reverting without giving explanations. You were asked to use the Talk page and have not. If you continued you will be reported. Skllagyook (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the reliable source. The people I mentioned are scientists from archeology Survey of India. There are two sides of the theory. Being biased and one sided is not accepted sir . There are both acceptable and non acceptable approaches to the theory so that readers will understand that There are two sides of this theory . KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, the study itself does not claim that the Aryans originated from India. And as User:Austronesier explained, reliable scholarly sources are required. The Indigenous Aryan theory is not mainstream and is generally rejected by mainstream scholarship (including the most recent genetic studies - actual studies, not popular journalistic articles about them such as the one(s) you repeatedly cited in your edit). Per Wikipedia's policies, we avoid giving WP:UNDUE emphasis to minority and fringe views (see WP:FALSEBALANCE. But it is better to discuss this on the article's Talk page than here. Skllagyook (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This theory is rejected by certain political parties and certain scientists who are one sided. The leftists support Aryan invasion theory .The right wing supports out of india theory so let's be neutral and allow the readers to know both sides of the argument by not being biased.There are already enough evidences to challenge Aryan theory .let's not be political and biased and allow the reader to explore both sides of the argument. Aryan invasion theory is debunked by many scholars some support it .you cannot conclude such a topic .be neutral .don't be political or biased. Thank you for talking to me :). KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many genetic studies which rejected this .you are being biased.let's be open minded and allow the user to see both sides of the argument. Don't be biased .thank you for your time sir . KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read my reply. Also, I suggest you read the discussions of Talk page of the article, where this issue has already been discussed. And, as I mentioned, the place to discuss this is the article's Talk page, not here (nor my personal Talk page). Skllagyook (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The right wing supports out of india theory so let's be neutral and allow the readers to know both sides of the argument: the article on Indigenous Aryanism mentions and explains this. Indigenous Aryanism is a religious-political view, thinly disguised as science, as explained in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has a evidence you cannot say uts false. This is biased . We have to show all kinds of arguments. You are pushing your Ideology which is wrong .Many scientists like niraj rai have an evidence . I don't know maybe you are not indian but you are being biased and disrespectful towards indian history and being one sided. Be neutral .don't take the freedom of others by not allowing items to edit. We all edit with reliable source you can use talk page of the indigenous aryanism .no propaganda please .thank you. KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked/warned you to stop edit warring and you have continued. Instead of starting a Talk page discussion, you again re-inserted the disputed material. Skllagyook (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who started edit war. I warned you but you seem to pish your opinions and one sided view. This platform is not for that.kindly read the wikipedia policies. It's not disputable .you are just being biased . I warned you .kindly be neutral and don't bring Politics and biases here. You will be reported .thank you. KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at ANI[edit]

KnowledgeHunter9090, please don't remove reports from WP:ANI. You are not authorized to do so (especially when you are the subject of the complaint, leave that to someone uninvolved). Thanks. El_C 21:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing . KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 ~~~~}}. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shinde et al. (2019)[edit]

Regarding the Rakhigarhi-DNA and Shinde et al. (2019), see:
Rakhigarhi DNA - Ancient DNA study of skeletal remains of IVC - Shinde et al. (2019) - Further confirmation of Narasimhan (2018). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 22:20, 22 June 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).

KnowledgeHunter9090 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand why I got blocked .The block is also not necessary because I learned from my mistake. I understood my mistake . I will not repeat it again I am a new editor. I request you to unblock me. KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You say you understand, but you don't tell us what you understand. You say the block is unnecessary, but you don't tell us what you learned and what your "mistake" was. You say you understood your mistake, but you don't share that understanding. This is not encouraging. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:59, 22 June 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.

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).

KnowledgeHunter9090 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have understood that what I did comes under disruptive editing but I produced reliable source but there is a rule that a user can only undo for 3 times which I don't really know . I understood that if I have any disagreements and want a change or seen something wrong then I have to discuss in the talk page with the other editor who disagrees which I didn't do .I have learned my mistake that I didn't use talk page if someone have disagreements and engaged in an edit war. I have understood that I have to use talk page.As I am a new editor I don't know many things ,I understood that I have to read all the wikipedia rules and the policies . Hope you unblock me and give me another chance so that I will grow and will not repeat a mistake and will talk with the people who disagree and learn more about the wikipedia policiesand rules . Thank you sir. KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You claim you produced a reliable source, but that contradicts the findings at WP:ANI. You don't address your violations of WP:NPOV at all. Nor do you address your attempt to hide the report about you. Yamla (talk) 10:34, 23 June 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.

I forgot to mention . The source which is cited as reliable is not clear and reliable sorry for that I will do more research before adding any citations .I didn't use the talk page properly and didn't discuss with editors who disagreed .Next time I will do more research before editing any article and try to produce more reliable source .I understand I didn't produce more reliable source and ignored to use the talk page and discuss with other editors . Yes ,I accept my mistake that I tried to hide the report . I did a mistake. Next time will not repeat this. I will try to to contribute more productive work in wiipedia . Please give me another chance . I am a new editor and please read my previous ones in which I accepted my other mistakes . Kindly forgive me . I am confident that I will never make a mistake again and will use talk page to talk with editors who have problem. I have understood that what I did comes under disruptive editing but I produced reliable source but there is a rule that a user can only undo for 3 times which I don't really know . I understood that if I have any disagreements and want a change or seen something wrong then I have to discuss in the talk page with the other editor who disagrees which I didn't do .I have learned my mistake that I didn't use talk page if someone have disagreements and engaged in an edit war. I have understood that I have to use talk page.As I am a new editor I don't know many things ,I understood that I have to read all the wikipedia rules and the policies . Hope you unblock me and give me another chance so that I will grow and will not repeat a mistake and will talk with the people who disagree and learn more about the wikipedia policiesand rules . Forgive me. Unblock me and I will never repeat this conduct .Thank you sir. KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 12:30, 23 June 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).

KnowledgeHunter9090 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

forgot to mention . The source which is cited as reliable is not clear and reliable sorry for that I will do more research before adding any citations .I didn't use the talk page properly and didn't discuss with editors who disagreed .Next time I will do more research before editing any article and try to produce more reliable source .I understand I didn't produce more reliable source and ignored to use the talk page and discuss with other editors . Yes ,I accept my mistake that I tried to hide the report . I did a mistake. Next time will not repeat this. I will try to to contribute more productive work in wiipedia . Please give me another chance . I am a new editor and please read my previous ones in which I accepted my other mistakes . Kindly forgive me . I am confident that I will never make a mistake again and will use talk page to talk with editors who have problem. I have understood that what I did comes under disruptive editing but I produced a non* reliable source but there is a rule that a user can only undo for 3 times which I don't really know . I understood that if I have any disagreements and want a change or seen something wrong then I have to discuss in the talk page with the other editor who disagrees which I didn't do .I have learned my mistake that I didn't use talk page if someone have disagreements and engaged in an edit war. I have understood that I have to use talk page.As I am a new editor I don't know many things ,I understood that I have to read all the wikipedia rules and the policies . Hope you unblock me and give me another chance so that I will grow and will not repeat a mistake and will talk with the people who disagree and learn more about the wikipedia policiesand rules . Forgive me. Unblock me and I will never repeat this conduct .Thank you sir. KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 11:51, 18 July 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.

I learned my mistakes .The source which is cited as reliable is not clear and notreliable sorry for that I will do more research before adding any citations .I didn't use the talk page properly and didn't discuss with editors who disagreed .Next time I will do more research before editing any article and try to produce more reliable source .I understand I didn't produce more reliable source and ignored to use the talk page and discuss with other editors . Yes ,I accept my mistake that I tried to hide the report . I did a mistake. Next time will not repeat this. I will try to to contribute more productive work in wiipedia . Please give me another chance . I am a new editor and please read my previous ones in which I accepted my other mistakes . Kindly forgive me . I am confident that I will never make a mistake again and will use talk page to talk with editors who have problem. I have understood that what I did comes under disruptive editing but I produced a non* reliable source but there is a rule that a user can only undo for 3 times which I don't really know . I understood that if I have any disagreements and want a change or seen something wrong then I have to discuss in the talk page with the other editor who disagrees which I didn't do .I have learned my mistake that I didn't use talk page if someone have disagreements and engaged in an edit war. I have understood that I have to use talk page.As I am a new editor I don't know many things ,I understood that I have to read all the wikipedia rules and the policies . Hope you unblock me and give me another chance so that I will grow and will not repeat a mistake and will talk with the people who disagree and learn more about the wikipedia policiesand rules . Forgive me. Unblock me and I will never repeat this conduct .Thank you.Give me another chance. KnowledgeHunter9090 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You only need one open unblock request at a time. I have removed the {{unblock}} formatting from your comments above, and removed the duplicates. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 01:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]