69.172.85.34

March 2015

Hello, I'm Optakeover. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to 2002 Gujarat riots— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Optakeover^(Talk) 20:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to 2002 Gujarat riots. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Optakeover^(Talk) 20:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha was changed by 69.172.85.34 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.860254 on 2015-03-14T20:38:41+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Akshardham (Delhi), you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Akshardham (Delhi) was changed by 69.172.85.34 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.906942 on 2015-03-14T20:42:59+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Cease from making Disruptive Edits

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) 03:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) 03:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

Kapil.xerox (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

Kapil.xerox (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Your recent editing history at Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Bbb23 (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

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

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Warning again after 48 hour block

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kapil.xerox (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Amaury (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Equally, please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Hindu Views on Evolution. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kapil.xerox (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Religious perspectives on tattooing. ToonLucas22 (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello, I'm EoRdE6. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sect, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Creationism. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Hinduism in South America, you may be blocked from editing. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Your recent editing history at Creationism 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:69.172.85.34 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: ). Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Creationism. --Mr Fink (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at creationism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Swarm... ^—X— 03:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Admin block due to conflict with admin's personal agenda and inobjectivity to accept a better more comphrehensive view of Hinduism in contracts to his/her presumed Abrahimic views

Decline reason:

Admin block due to your edit warring. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No edit warring, sources provided. Admin should be blocked for edit warring and priviliges revoked

Decline reason:

Yes, you were edit warring. Also, see the messages below. MER-C 05:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Discretionary sanctions notifications

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 pseudoscience and fringe science, 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 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.

MER-C 05:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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 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.

MER-C 05:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Facts presented were neither pseudoscience or fringe science, wikipedia pages exist with the same exact concepts, links are provided, this may be a block driven by politics of the administrators and maybe negative views towards Hinduism

Decline reason:

Since you do not appear to intend to use this page for a valid unblock appeal, and have chosen to use it instead for continuing your polemic, I have removed talkpage access for the duration of the block. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Hello, I'm Amaury. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Proselytism— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:69.172.85.34 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: ). Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Creationism. --Mr Fink (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

personal/political/religious reasons for block, all sources are cited and currently published on wikipedia

Decline reason:

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. Bbb23 (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Hello, I'm Padenton. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to International Society for Krishna Consciousness— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ― Padenton|✉   19:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

---