User talk:AlphaVictorDelta0107

Welcome!

Hi AlphaVictorDelta0107! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 17:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Indic text

Hi! I found that you have been adding indic scripts in the infoboxes to a lot of articles. Refer to WP:INDICSCRIPT, and please refrain from adding indic scripts to the lede/infobox of India related articles (with a few exceptions). If different or need be, it can either include a transliteration or IPA pronunciation. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Magentic Manifestations I am a new user, I didn't know that before. I will keep this in mind from now on. I have read the policy now. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

No worries. You will get to know them with time. Happy editing! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please do not mark your edits as minor edits when they are not. See Help:Minor edit. Edwardx (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sonal Shah (economist), a link pointing to the disambiguation page was Gujarati. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@DPL bot thanks man I edited it to the relevant link AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Honorific prefixes in infoboxes

Hi. Please do not move honorific prefixes in infoboxes from honorific_prefix into name as you did at Keir Starmer and Frank Worrell. Per Template:Infobox person, of name: Do not put honorifics or alternative names in this parameter. There are separate parameters for these things. Also, please make sure you are using accurate edit summaries; you made these two edits, and several others [1] [2] [3], with the inaccurate edit summary Fixed grammar. Thanks :) Pink Bee (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pink Bee Sorry man, I figured that since, The Right Honourable was already the prefix, it would look neat if the Sir was in the name. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem. The layout of the infobox template may be improved in the future, but until then we have to use the parameters as intended – otherwise, changes to the template will break individual articles. Cheers. Pink Bee (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Indic script - again

Please stop disrupting our articles, as you did at Bengaluru. It was clearly explained, above, that you should not add Indic script to our articles, but you have continued to do so, please stop. - Arjayay (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Arjayay But I didn't edit the info box‍, only the introduction. Is that also not allowed? what an outdated policy AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Arjayay Will not add Indic Script ever again on either lede or infobox. really sorry man AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

You are still adding Indicscript in the lead ( ) and edit warring about it . There is no exception like you quoted in the edit summary. Courtesy ping @Arjayay:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk I added it on a note AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

That's gaming the system. You also mentioned "Indic script is acceptable if the subject used it during their life" which is not quoted in the policy. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk Okay I may have been incorrect but I am really sorry. It was a note and NOT a direct entry in a lede or infobox AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Keir Starmer

Please stop making this edit without first seeking consensus on the talk page. You've been reverted several times and are bordering on disruptive editing/edit warring. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Estar8806 Okay what's the talk page link? AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Estar8806 Topic name of the appropriate talk page AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You need to open the discussion if you want to propose a change. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Estar8806 Okay AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Page moves

Please stop moving pages without first discussing your proposed move on the relevant talk page, and obtaining consensus. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Arjayay I am Sorry, will exercise restraint from now on and obtain consensus, got a bit excited in wiki editing. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@AlphaVictorDelta0107, you have been consistently moving the page Thanjavur Nayak Kingdom without discussion on the talk page, even after I reverted the changes. Please stop moving the page until a proper discussion has taken place on the talk page. FactCheckerBharath (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walter White (Breaking Bad), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alias was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Native name

For diasporic actors such as Maitreyi Ramakrishnan, having native name in infobox doesn't seem necessary when they are not fluent in the language, and when viewers of the article will be non-Tamil/American people mostly. See Vivek Ramaswamy and Michelle Yeoh. Even for Tamil actors, such practices are not followed. DareshMohan (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

Hello, I'm StephenMacky1. I noticed that you recently made an edit to September 11 attacks in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. "Islamist" is not a typo. Thanks. StephenMacky1 (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1 I didn't know what else to type, but now I will type accurate summaries. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not change links to redirects like in this edit. It is not needed, increases server load slightly and can be seen as disrespectful. Sjö (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sjö ok AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Killing of Kandula Jaahnavi, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name does not follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Sources also describe it as such, you did not provide a convincing reason. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 00:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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. Please refrain from adding unsourced 'fullnames' based on your assumptions. Include WP:RS, WP:ICTFSOURCES in support when adding such info. Also we do not mention names of non-notable parents, children and relatives (except spouse(s)) in the infobox. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk they are sourced from ZAUBA. I AM NOT LYING. it is constructed not disruptive. I am sorry if it appears disruptive. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Recently, someone flagged ZaubaCorp for being unreliable. Please find WP:ICTF compliant sources and refrain from editing/edit warring without including sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk I didn't know that, I am sorry. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Anyway, start referencing your changes, and go through WP:BRD. I see you've received a lot of warnings. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Zalaraz (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Zalaraz Sorry, I was not fighting, I was just trying to give a concise summary. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Vivek Ramaswamy

Just wanted to let you know that without the dot in Tamil க் or the curly u above in Malayalam ക്, the name becomes Viveka not Vivek. DareshMohan (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@DareshMohan Yes, That's the proper Sanskrit/Malayalam pronunciation, Viveka विवेक not the American spell Vivek विवेक्. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

His name is just Vivek though.. DareshMohan (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed the name as written in Tamil. MOS:INDICSCRIPT states that it should be avoided in the lead and infobox for exactly these types of disagreements. -- Reconrabbit 14:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Mojtaba Khomeini lead

Hey, I saw that you readded politician to the lead. You may want to drop in on the talk page discussion at Talk:Mojtaba_Khamenei#Politician? to make the case for your view. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill On it. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1978 Iranian politics, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 23:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) caste-related topics in South Asia.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Zalaraz (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Zalaraz what page edit of mine was contentious? AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The topic you have been editing itself is contentious. Zalaraz (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Zohran Mamdani's nationality

Whilst I personally think you're probably right about Mamdani's nationality, you do need to provide sources. Please add reliable sources to the article to show that what you're adding is correct. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Carroll (crater), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 13:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@AlphaVictorDelta0107 on review of WP:ANCESTRY, the data you've found may be user-generated which we can't use. If you can find other sourcing on that info instead, I recommend doing so. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 16:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at KK (singer), you may be blocked from editing. Schazjmd (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Schazjmd Isn't Zauba Corp a good source. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

You didn't cite any sources for your changes. Schazjmd (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mohanlal, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Aadirulez8 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Aadirulez8 Zauba AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

Please look into WP:ICTFSOURCES. Add reliable sources.

Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. PhilKnight (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Editing A. R. Rahman article official name without reason.

When removing a name or title, it is essential to include the reason for the removal. When such official data is removed, the person responsible for it is? Wikibuddys (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Wikibuddys Zauba AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

You've answered just 'Zauba' to a lot of questions on here. What kind of an answer is that? GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@GenevieveDEon Zauba Corp website which lists Indian company filings and their directors AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Zohran Mamdani. Cadddr (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr What did I add that was Unsourced? AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Mamdani's parents' castes. Cadddr (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr He himself admitted in an interview with Mehdi Hasan that he is of a Khoja background. And for his mother, her surname Nair comes from the Punjabi surname "Nayyar" who are Khatris AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean, 'admitted'? And that claim about the surname origin is original research or synthesis. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@GenevieveDEon from her Wikipedia. Her surname was originally Nayyar but her parents rendered it as Nair. And Sorry, English is not the language that I am the most fluent in. That is Marathi. so sorry, Not admitted, but stated. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

from her Wikipedia - WP:WINARS. You can't just say it's on her Wikipedia page. The claim that her surname discloses her caste, in her case specifically, would need to be cited to reliable sources. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

For his mother, GenevieveDEon is right: that's original research.

For his father, you didn't cite a source, so how would we know that's where you got the information? Please see WP:VERIFY. Cadddr (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr look up the article Nayar (name) for the Nayyars, they are Nagavanshis of the Kshatriya community, a caste called in their native Punjabi language as "Khatri". AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Cadddr Obviously his mother isn't a Khoja, they are a Muslim community. So if Zohran states that he belongs to the Khoja people, then obviously that comes from his father. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The goal isn't to convince me that your claims are true; you need to find reliable sources explicitly stating these facts about these specific people. The sorts of inferences you're making can't be used on Wikipedia. Cadddr (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

Please ask at the teahouse or the help desk on how to cite sources since evidently my messages regarding your changes at Reid Wiseman and Carroll (crater) explaining it were unclear. Do not add this again without citing a source in your edit. I see you've already been given a final warning for adding unsourced content, this is the last piece of guidance I'm going to personally offer. It's very likely that an administrator will become involved if it continues. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 18:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer OK AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you ask in those places yet? GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to S. A. Chandrasekhar, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name does not follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Also, none of those edits were actually minor.  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 18:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sumanuil his real name is what I done and he is credited as such in his work AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe leave it to someone with a better grasp of English. And both spellings are used in the references. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 18:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to S. A. Chandrasekhar that could be considered controversial. I believe you have a registered account but made your edits while logged out from it. Please be mindful Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts prohibits editors from using alternate accounts (including temporary ones) to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus as detailed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry § Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. You can avoid issues related to this by making sure you are logged in before editing. Thank you.  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sumanuil I have not made any edit of mine logout AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sumanuil I am willing to undergo a proper investigation to these allegations. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to V. D. Satheesan, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. 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 your 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. You do not choose the title of a page based on whether it ‘looks better’, which is subjective. Rather, as per WP:INITIALS, you are supposed to put dots after initials and non-breaking spaces between initials. CatholicChristian (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@CatholicChristian Okay thw old format was better, but I have observed both formats being followed on Wikipedia AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Just because it’s followed does not mean it’s what the guidelines say. CatholicChristian (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@CatholicChristian No problem, won't repeat the mistake AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

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 Salman Rushdie, you may be blocked from editing. Thedarkknightli (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Your edit on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar () is against MOS:GEOLINK and MOS:VAR. Please knock it off with edit warring, or I'll take you to WP:ANI. Thedarkknightli (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

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 Mohanlal, you may be blocked from editing. Aadirulez8 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Aadirulez8. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mohanlal have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Aadirulez8 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

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 Mohanlal, you may be blocked from editing. CatholicChristian (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@CatholicChristian why should I be blocked when I am providing more sources? this is so irrational. so now I am block from writing the true facts? it's not disruptive if I am adding sources. I am consistently doing so. now I don't know how to resolve this when the other party is consistently revolting to false info. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, yes. You are right. I am sorry. CatholicChristian (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Kajol

Hi! Please stop removing content from Kajol's article, like IPA data. Also, on Wikipedia, you don't use father's first names as middle names of their children. Thank you! Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, the name in the infobox should be just Kajol because that's her stage name. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Shshshsh ZaubaCorp ke Anusar maine likha tha AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand it but it's not a reliable source. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@AlphaVictorDelta0107, you have been told multiple times that Zauba is NOT a reliable source - STOP USING IT. It's getting disruptive at this point - no more of this. If you really think it meets the WP:RS criteria, start a discussion on WP:RSN, pointing to prior discussions, and explain why you think it's a reliable source. If you keep using it, the next step is probable to raise this to admin attention at WP:ANI. Ravensfire (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Considering this is now the third "final" warning in the past 2 weeks over AVD's chronic issues with sourcing, I would support somebody starting that ANI thread (I am not available to start it myself or I would do so) ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 21:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ravensfire

https://www.zaubacorp.com/KAJOL-VISHAL-DEVGAN-01606272

I am not editing anything disruptively, but just take a look at it. And I will no longer edit anything Unsourced or unreliably sourced, but please tell me why is Zauba flagged as unreliable? 🙏 AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Vijay

Please stop changing the official name on the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu article. If you continue edit warring, I will have to report you to the admins. — Ganeshk (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ganeshk He is most commonly known as Vijay, for example Narendra Damodardas Modi's more common name is Narendra Modi and he is written as such, so full name is not given in the infobox, it is only given in their article AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@AlphaVictorDelta0107, please wait until this discussion here, Talk:Vijay_(actor)#Requested_move_4_May_2026 is closed. The CM page will retain what the TN Government officially calls him. — Ganeshk (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Stalin

Please stop your continuous removal of content from the article on Stalin after I have explained the issue many times. If you have a dispute, discuss it, reach an agreement, and then edit accordingly. Also, your allegations that I am connected to some party’s IT wing could lead to ANI consequences. E.Saravanan (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@E.Saravanan why are you using the term statesman, it is used for the most eminent of personalities only, the subject that I edited was chief minister for 5 years only, there have been many others who have been chief ministers and prime ministers for much longer but have not been described with this term because it is considered promotional and not neutral AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The interpretation you are making on statesman is on the other side entirely. The article and the subject were not related only to his role as CM, he has a long political and public history beyond being a CM. The word ‘statesman’ is not reserved only for long-serving CMs or PMs, as you mentioned. A statesman is a respected, skilled, and experienced political leader or public figure, it is not merely a promotional term. Please refer to Gunnar Sträng for example. E.Saravanan (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@E.Saravanan OK no problem, I will have to agree to you, because I don't know in detail about his work. but maybe it's a discussion for his talk page. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji

Hi, you have been asked and warned multiple times to stop editing articles based on unreliable sources, as you did before on Kajol, now on Rani Mukerji, in addition to many other articles. Please stop it, this is becoming disruptive editing. Please read WP:RS. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Shshshsh I have provided source in my edit you just have to see it her correct name is as such. for both Kajol and Rani I provided Court documents AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

As you know, Thedarkknightli reverted your edits at Vinayak Damodar Savarkar twice on 23 May,^{04:52, 06:06} and you reverted back saying Don't tag my good edits as disruptive. Please could you use Talk:Vinayak Damodar Savarkar to explain your edits. He/she said that there were "Manual of Style issues" with your edits. Repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, without explaining on the talk page, is edit warring.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop. Your edits on the pages of Kajol and other have become too disruptive. You have been told multiple times that your source is not reliable. Also, we do not use official or leaked documents to determine information. Please see WP:COMMONNAME. Consider it a warning please. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Shshshsh I have provided sources AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

No, you haven't! indiakanoon is not reliable, you have been notified of this. You are edit warring and your edits on other pages such as Kareena Kapoor are in complete vilation of WP:MOS. If you are reverted on reasonable grounds, do not revert back instantly unless you want to be blocked from editing for your disruptive editing - use the talk page and try to achieve consensus. I see this is a recurring pattern here, an WP:ANI case is probably in order. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Shahid,

He has been constantly doing the same at Mohanlal. I have warned him multiple times on his talk page but continuous edit warring! This is not a single article behavior, he has been doing all over the place. Admins are not taking any action even after multiple reports. Please escalate to the admins if you can.

Thanks, Aadirulez8 (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

→ You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm giving you a chance to revert yourself on Kareena Kapoor's article and start a talk page discussion - if you don't, I'll report this case. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Gotitbro (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

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

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

AlphaVictorDelta0107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I am sorry, I am a bit new when it comes to Wikipedia, so I got a bit excited, I will shall always maintain that even though it was inappropriate for me to make changes without consensus, I can assure you that none of the my changes were of ill intentions or disruption or vandalism, I am not the most fluent in English. I would like to humbly request to be unblocked, and that I would contribute very carefully with all consensus, wherever possible. I was always intendent upon editing Wikipedia for the better with all good information. Therefore I request you to review my edits, and unblock me if possible, I didn't mean to disrupt, vandalise or anger the fellow community of editors. And my grammar and vocabulary and spelling will be fluent and there will be no for the transgressions from me. AV Datar AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No. You were given plenty of opportunities. The only path forward I can see for you is to edit another wikimedia project for at least 500 edits across at least six months free of problems, then come back here and request an unblock. Yamla (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2026 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) Since you've confirmed you're not very fluent in English, it might not be a good idea for you to try to edit an English encyclopedia - this usually needs a high degree of knowledge to edit productively. You might prefer to edit a Wikipedia project in your native language instead; you can find a list of available projects at List of Wikipedias. Blue-Sonnet 20:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

AlphaVictorDelta0107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

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. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2026 (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.

@AlphaVictorDelta0107: You have to give a reason. Saying "I want to be unblocked for no reason", guarantees refusal. See WP:GAB, which is an explanatory essay about the appealing a block guideline page. A block is not a punishment, but a way to prevent further disruption. If blocked users want to be unblocked, they should understand the reasons for the block, and convince administrators that they would not disrupt the project if they were unblocked.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @AlphaVictorDelta0107 Please read through my last post here and the standard offer process. I don't think you are able to edit English Wikipedia properly right now, since editing an encyclopedia usually needs a high level of knowledge of the English language - you've confirmed that you are not fluent, so I don't think it's a good idea for you to work on this specific Wikipedia. Please look into working on a Wikipedia in your native/first language, which you should find a lot easier to do. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 14:56, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Unblock request

Unblock

(Non-administrator comment) It looks like you were blocked because you didn't understand a few things, including the WP:OR, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS guidelines. With this in mind, I'd like to ask you a few additional questions to help the assessment of your appeal:

1. Can you explain how the YouTube short meets the Reliable source (RS) guidelines?
2. How do the other sources you've given meet the Reliable source guidelines?
3. What is your understanding of the Common name guideline?

In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet

1) It's part of a larger interview, I provided a brief snippet but the full interview is there, for it's link look up this, https://youtube.com/uK3LJ67utG4

It's the official page of Mehdi Hasan and you will find the snippet at 34 minutes and 54 seconds. But the fact of him being Khoja is verified by him that is true.

2) the other sources are directly from the official websites of courts of law.

3) my understanding of the common name guideline is that the common name should remain as it is, but the full legal name should be given in the lede sentence. When I had provided the full name of Kajol as Kajol Vishal Devgan in the starting lede instead of Kajol Devgan, I was reverted for providing her full name source with an Indian Kanoon cite. So my understanding is that in the lede start the name should begin with the full name just like how for example in the name of Ajay Devgn the article introduces him as Vishal Virender Devgan, his real name. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, but please don't create duplicate appeals - you've already got one open and don't need four more of them (three were blank). I've tried to fix this for you so please just reply normally in future. An administrator will be along as soon as they can to review your appeal, they'll let you know if they have any further questions for you. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 18:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

AlphaVictorDelta0107 - please take a few moments to read WP:BLPPRIMARY, especially Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. (emphasis in the original). Don't use those sources. Don't mention them. Please. Seriously. Ravensfire (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ravensfire

@Ravensfire

I read the policy and it stated that one could use reliable secondary sources which don't directly divulge personal deets, As it says, Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

So for example for Kajol, I can provide this source as https://www.livelawbiz.com/amp/personality-rights/delhi-high-court-protects-actress-kajol-personality-rights-against-ai-deepfakes-vulgar-chatbots-524553

And for Rani Mukerji, I can provide the source as, https://www.thecompanycheck.com/people-profile/rani-ram-mukerji/06883920

Finally, I understand to not directly cite the court records but to go to reputed secondary sources in case the primary become too personal with regards to the policy criteria of WP:BLPPRIMARY.

I once again say that I will always be intendent upon improvement for objective true and good content and that I have learnt from my mistakes and am reading the policies as we speak, and that the unblock is no longer necessary

Warm regards. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ravensfire Hey, what's the update regarding my request? AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Not an admin, so can't help. Probably good for you as I would have declined this as you still don't really get why you got blocked, are still pushing the same behaviors. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Being very honest, there are a lot of issues that were raised at ANI originally. Things like edit warring, promising they understood something and going back on it a month later, original research and non-English summaries. This is maybe half of the problems raised there. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet in my nearly 2000 edits only two have non English summaries. and no I didn't do original research I did provide sources. It is because of my efforts that C. Joseph Vijay has his correct legal name on the lede, it was Joseph Vijay Chandrasekhar before, now it is stable in the correct form, I have said before that I am apologetic for this behaviour of warring and don't ever intend to continue it, would always seek consensus, I was new to editing in the last 5 months and got excited and don't intend to be now, I would always err on the side of caution and always strictly follow protocol, if I am unblocked now. I am getting up to date with policy even as we speak, and do intend to strictly adhere to it. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@AlphaVictorDelta0107 If someone reverts one of your edits, what would you do next?

BTW I'm in the middle of something so can't provide a comprehensive list of questions regarding the issues you've caused, so I strongly recommend that you read through the ANI thread yourself to get a full understanding of what's happened. If you think anything is missing from your appeal, you can add it as a reply here. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 16:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet I will seek consensus in the articles talk page and I would ping the reverter's talk page if their edit is not helpful. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean "I will seek consensus in the articles talk page"?-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC) If yes, please amend the above - there is a significant different in meaning between "see" and "seek".-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Toddy1 done. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Since you submitted your unblock request (below), you have had corrective feedback from different people. If I were you, I would use some of that feedback to improve your unblock request. Remember, it has not been reviewed yet, so you can change it. Don't make a new request - edit the existing request - and use the "show preview" button to check that it comes out the way you expected it to.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet

This is the original post you replied to which got deleted since:

I have seen the whole

thread on me, and would like to state that the block on me is no longer necessary, because, firstly I have been taught the hard lesson to read each and every WPs and all the guidelines thoroughly if I stand a chance of survival as an editor on this platform and to contribute productively, I had done those mistakes because I thought that non Indians can get their native name written in hat notes (I was wrong, according to WP:INDICSCRIPT, secondly, I won't repeat the mistake of adding names from sources that are not considered to be the most reliable in accordance with Wikipedia, If I am unblocked, for example for Kajol and Rani Mukerji, for providing their legal names I will give,

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showlogo/1771944331_ffcdfd3ed183cc8c_jis_1732026.pdf/2026

From the Delhi HC website

and

https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/-55494837146561799101351REFNOMicrosoft_Word_-_ITA___90_-93_Rani_Ram_Mukkerji.pdf

From the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Website.

As their sources respectively, and won't use sources like ZaubaCorp and Indian Kanoon. I am sorry for using sources that were just not to be relied upon and if unblocked wouldn't even think of repeating my mistake ever again.

So I have learnt this tough lesson that being right is not enough here, I have to gain consensus AND I have to provide sources. And for people's ethnic background link those sources for example for Zohran Mamdani, his father being Khoja can be sourced by https://youtube.com/shorts/8TzYjDjchQM.

Some of the errors for which I would like to apologise unreservedly, using the word Pagan, I come from a school in India that uses a very old fashioned kind of English, you know like uttering, Mrs like Mistress, so the language that I was was not the most updated, thought that the word is very inoffensive and just meant Non Abrahamic religions or in my local context to be synonymous with Hindu, as a Hindu who studied in a Hindu school, I never meant to offend and I am sorry. I also apologise unreservedly for saying the caste names of people without any sources and ascertain if they or their families have ever publicly stated it before ever editing it. I am sorry for describing them as Khatri for Mira Nair and Brahmin for Surya Kant. I won't repeat this casteist behaviour ever again. And would like to apologise for the hurt my actions have unintentionally caused to other people.

P. S.

I won't use direct court records ever again and have since provided reliable secondary sources. I have understood all the problems with my work and my behaviour would be very wise and amended if I am ever unblocked. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet another point I would like to add is stated by User:Gotitbro, here AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Since, I've been pinged here, I'd clarify that I oppose any unblocking.

Some of your edits maybe fine on surface. But you were not blocked for minor infringements at certain articles. You were blocked due to mass disruptive and combative editing (including edit warring) at multiple articles; including unilateral changes against consensus for infoboxes, leads, scripts, sources and on and on despite being repeatedly told that these are wrong .

These edits egregiously continued right upto the point of you being blocked . Gotitbro (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gotitbro Yes, I did do these mistakes in my first five months here, but don't intend to continue it, and will thebe the most compliant to policy if unblocked. the points you've mentioned have been noted by my and I have explained them. for example I replaced British India with British Raj, because it is more specific as, Company Raj was also British India. I have understood that I shouldn't have acted non-consensually and should have gained consensus on the talk pages and complied to the site policy. another example where my good edit got reverted is on Raj Kapoor's article, where I gave his place of birth as Peshawar, NWFP, British Raj, but which later got reverted and the province name was removed. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

"for example I replaced British India with British Raj, because it is more specific as, Company Raj was also British India."

Your comment above only furthers the WP:CIR issues for which you were blocked. It has been explained to you no less than five times that "British Raj was the govt./admin not the territory so putting that in the infobox as a place is simply incorrect, these are not interchangeable at all. We have very solid consensus for using "British India" in the infobox"

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. No you did not "do these mistakes in my first five months here, you continued with this right till a block had to be imposed due to the disruption. From trying to deliberately circumvent consensus and policies (e.g. WP:INDICSCRIPTS) by gaming the system, not engaging in discussion, edit warring over your clearly disruptive [and incorrect] edits [against consensus].

It is hard for the community to trust any of your claims when you cannot be honest or understand what problems you caused. Take the WP:SO and cool-off wikipedia for a while, though even that might be problematic if you keep on with the half-truths. Gotitbro (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Gotitbro I didn't intentionally try to circumvent consensus, I didn't intentionally game the system, I am saying that if British India should be the one written as per policy, then I will comply with it and will respect the relevant consensus, I have realized my mistakes and there is no way I am commiting any transgressions ever again, if I do so, block me immediately. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@AlphaVictorDelta0107: I have deactivated the unblock template above because you have submitted a better-focussed unblock request below.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Which would be the sixth open unblock template made in a row - @AlphaVictorDelta0107 please don't use the unblock template if you just want to comment or reply - you should only have one open at a time.

You can reply to us here and the administrator will see it when they assess your appeal, they'll look at all of the discussion, not just what's in the blue template box. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet OK understood, the reply wasn't getting sent when I tried, so I opened. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Now it is working properly. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, it might be because the software won't let you reply to a template (or a message directly under one) - if that happens, go to edit the page directly and write your comment below the person you're replying to.

You'll see the indentation shown as a colon ( : ), you just add one more so your reply flows properly.

For example, if you look at Source editor and my post starts with three colons ( ::: ) then you write below my signature, but use four colons instead. If you edit this way, make sure to sign your post (use ~~~~ at the end). In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 11:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Understood. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet So what's the update regarding my unblock request? AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the subsequent appeals have reset your place in the "queue", so-to-speak - they're usually dealt with in order of receipt and the extra appeals threw things off a little.

Your appeal is definitely in the queue, however, and will be assessed by an administrator as soon as they can. Admins are volunteers (like we are) and there's currently a backlog of appeals so I'm not sure how long they'll be exactly, but your case won't go anywhere until it's dealt with. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 17:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Got it, thanks. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Yamla and @Rsjaffe, what do you all have to say to me? I would love an insight and would really appreciate an unblock as I am reformed. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

STOP PINGING PEOPLE. I gave you a path forward. Edit another wikimedia project for at least 500 edits across at least six months free of problems. That you can't be bothered to do so is your problem, not mine. --Yamla (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Yamla I could contribute a lot more productively here on English Wikipedia, if I am given this last chance. I didn't intentionally break trust. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

If you ping me again, I'm revoking your talk page access. You are working exceptionally hard to demonstrate you will never listen to what you are told. --Yamla (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I am listening, I didn't intentionally ping you, it was just the template and I typed it. I am seeing topics in Marathi and Hindi I could edit and a working on it. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Just look at my contributions. I can and I have, and if unblocked, I will contribute productively to this website. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Putting an @ before a person's name is pinging them. You have been constantly pinging people. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs Like for example here I didn't put an @ before your name, I just replied and didn't remove the default of your ping. that's why he got pinged a second time. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

AlphaVictorDelta0107, I do not know what process you are using to edit, but you wrote @[[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] in the reply where you denied putting @ before editors' names. Maybe if you switched to source editor you would be able to control what you are doing. Alternatively, read what you are posting before you post it - you need to use the show preview button to do this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

it is by default tagged as I am not commenting through the source editor. one has to physically remove it. like I did in this comment. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

You can see why I only ever use source editor.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

OK AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@331dot, would love your insight and opinion, pinging you, I have now closed my other requests. and have fixed the format. What's your read of the situation. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• I think Yamla was correct to suggest you edit elsewhere for awhile. You should edit the Wikipedia of your primary language, that way you will not struggle to understand or to be understood. It also likely needs the help much more than we do, you could have a larger impact there. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  @331dot I had my notifications turned off before the block, I don't now, and btw English is my second language and although I am not fluent in speaking it, I am highly functional in writing and understanding it, but it's Indian English, and not the international standard that I use, but I have seen all the errors in my editing, and English is not one of them, and now I am quite functional in the standard version of the language on this side, I've realized, I will be compliant to policy and consensus, if the block that was necessarily imposed upon me is lifted now.

  Warm regards,

  AV Datar. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have nothing else to say about this matter. You asked for my opinion, and I have given it. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  It was not even about my English, I was new to this site in editing and learning stuff as I edited, had not read the policies fully, and did unintentionally repeat some mistakes, I have learnt a lot more of this editing and am much wiser in it than I was five months before, and now that I have learnt, I believe it is not only me alone, who'd agree that this once necessary block is no longer so, and that I could contribute more productively if given this chance. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  @331dot Hey, I want to just ask, when will this appeal be reviewed? AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

You don't have an open appeal. You took it down Special:Diff/1358601746 here, yesterday. --Yamla (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

because I wanted to keep it to a single appeal. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody's going to review your appeal because you don't have an open appeal. --Yamla (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay Thanks. I will post another Appeal. I didn't know that this particular appeal was not open. will proceed to corrective action. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Please heed the advice you've been given to follow the Wikipedia:Standard offer - look for another Wikimedia project at the List of Wikipedias (for example the Simple English Wikipedia) and try to get at least 500 substantial edits there over the next six months.

Bear in mind that they'll need to be significant enough for admins to consider as evidence (so not just typo fixes).

Other projects will be able to see your block here, so you'll have less leeway than other editors if you cause issues at another project - Simple has a "one strike" rule, for example.

Once you've got a decently-long history of productive editing elsewhere, use that as evidence in a future appeal if you decide you'd like to return. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 01:24, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet OK AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Unblock request for AlphaVictorDelta0107

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).

AlphaVictorDelta0107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I was told by administrator Yamla, that I don't have any open appeals, so I am opening this particular appeal, you will find the conversation on my talk page. It has ≥ 50 messages, including by administrators and non administrators. So kindly go through that and then reply me here if you accept or decline. Would really contribute productively, reformedly, and cautiously, if unblocked. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I think your path back is to take the standard offer. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:00, 11 June 2026 (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.

Unblock request

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).

AlphaVictorDelta0107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I would have worked on the standard offer, and wouldn't have requested to be unblocked. But I ran into a wall when I tried to open The Wikipedia library so that I could cite reliable sources for editing in Hindi and Tamil, it said that because I am blocked on English Wikipedia, I won't be able to access it, so this is my humble request, please unblock me I will edit properly, provide reliable sources, and gain consensus when reverted and not resort to edit warring. Please go through my edits. All of them would have accurate information. I have understood the issues my editing had. I would not repeat them ever again. And I am now well read in the policy matters. And would assuredly be an editor that could be trusted. Warm Regards, AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Again, you need to take the standard offer before any unblock request will be allowed. Unfortunately, due to your editing, you've lost the right to use the Wikipedia Library for now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2026 (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.

Unblock request

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).

AlphaVictorDelta0107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

My block is no longer necessary. I can't take the standard offer. Read my previous talk page threads for more information. I always wanted to edit Wikipedia to provide the most accurate information to all. But now, because of my indefinite block, due to my aggressive edits without consensus, what has happened is that now inaccurate information is now present on Wikipedia again. For example I had edited the name of Mohanlal as Mohanlal Viswanathan Nair on his lede intro, his full legal name, but now it is only Mohanlal Viswanathan, which is just inaccurate, his legal name is Mohanlal Viswanathan Nair according to his company filing, https://opencorporates.com/officers/236237320 Another example is Rani Mukerji, whose full legal name is Rani Ram Mukerji according to her company filing, https://opencorporates.com/officers/153814670 Now their article intro is inaccurate as per MOS:FULLNAME, I have now learnt Sir that while I had started editing correctly, it was not entirely correct as I was edit warring, and not falling back to the talk page. I am genuinely sorry, I was an excited teen and was not able to hold my horses, in trying to repeatedly enter correct info, I did wrong, something that could have been solved via talk page. Indeed I would edit consensuosly, and carefully, my edit warring was absolutely reckless and careless on my part, and would understand if my request is declined, as I was not upto the standards of this forum, but I would be now, and would contribute a lot more productively and would always seek consensus the very first time I am reverted. Warm regards, AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Absolutely nothing on this page convinces me that an unblock would be a good idea. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2026 (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.

Please be clear. Are you rejecting the standard offer? This was offered to you by multiple admins, even after you initially rejected it, but your unblock request shows you are not willing to follow the standard offer and are permanently rejecting it. Is that accurate? Be aware, this will have permanent consequences for you. --Yamla (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

All I am asking for is a review of my block, if I am declined right now, I will take the Standard offer and only request again on November 26, but if possible I would prefer to be unblocked right now, without resorting to the standard offer. so I am neither accepting it nor rejecting it. it is still an option to me. but not a preferable one because for 6 months. I could contribute productively. --AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If you could have been unblocked without the Standard offer, it honestly would have happened on your last appeal, or the one before that. Please be aware that your can have Talk page access removed if you make too many unsuccessful appeals (see the bottom of the declined appeals).

You can delete open (blue) appeals but declined (orange/brown) appeals must stay.

I really think you should withdraw (delete) this last open appeal before it's officially declined, this isn't going to succeed. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

To add to that, you don't get to keep on rejecting the standard offer over and over and over again, ignoring the advice to edit another wikimedia project making at least 500 edits, and then just come back and change your mind. Decide now. If you think the standard offer (plus 500 edits on another wikimedia site) is the way to go, remove your open unblock request. Otherwise, just tell us you are permanently rejecting the standard offer. Frankly, I think if you leave your unblock request up, the best you can hope for is your talk page access is revoked by the reviewing admin. --Yamla (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Yamla I am not taking the standard offer, I have decided, I will respect the admin's decision even if it is not in my favor. I leave it upto them to review and adjudicate. Their decision is final. Whatever they say, I shall comply to it. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Yamla's advice is beneficial to you, because the standard offer is basically the only likely path for you to return to English Wikipedia. It's OK to refuse to follow it, but just be very clear ahead of time that the alternative is likely to not be unblocked at all, and if you lose your talk page access, getting unblocked ever becomes a bit more difficult. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs I can't take the offer, knowing that I have seen my flaws , and that noticeboard discussion charged me more than my crimes, Perhaps if I had responded to the noticeboard and detailed my points there. I wouldn't have even needed to use unblock requests, because I wouldn't have been blocked in the first place. I was busy in some work and couldn't respond. And back then I had my notifications turned off. They aren't now. I am firm in my convictions. Blocking me indefinitely for this misunderstanding is a bit severe. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Multiple admins have told you WP:SO was your only path forward. You have now permanently rejected it and will not be eligible for this path in the future. This will almost certainly not work out for you, but you are indeed firm in your convictions. I strongly urge the reviewing admin to revoke your talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Yamla I am certainly ready to talk with the reviewing administrator as well. I will answer their questions clearly and factually. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You're certainly free to believe an indefinite block should not be in place, but this is the reality of the situation; you are indefinitely blocked. Multiple administrators have advised you there's little chance of an unblock without following the WP:OFFER. The WP:OFFER is not pointless bureaucracy; it's a process the community set up to allow blocked editors to be able to demonstrate good faith and a willingness to follow rules.

You basically have two realistic choices: follow the offer and possibly get unblocked in as little as six months or don't follow the offer and possibly get unblocked never. Talk page access can be revoked, and TPA-revoked editors can also be banned from WP:UTRS, which would mean that for all intents and purposes, your involvement in English Wikipedia would likely be over. There's no third choice where you just get to start editing again tomorrow.

Given that I think you really do wish to be a good editor on this project, I believe you are making a very poor choice to attain that goal. But you're an adult, and the choice to make a good choice or a poor one is your prerogative, since you're the one that has to live with the consequences. I hoped to advise you to a path that might have led to you returning to being an editor in good standing, but otherwise, I wish you nothing but the best in whatever you do in the future. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It's probably been said before, but "indefinite" just means there's no set end date; it can be repealed at any time. It's not permanent, but flexible.

The Standard offer was created to give editors enough time on another Wikimedia project to build up a history of productive edits - it's designed so that administrators have a large enough history to make a full and fair assessment of future appeals.

It makes the appeal immensely stronger too; just by virtue of going to the effort of working on a sister project for six months and collecting proof, you're showing admins that you care about your work, can follow instructions and can edit a Wikimedia project on a long-term basis without issue.

You've chosen to reject that process, therefore administrators are working with a much smaller pool of evidence and your case is vastly weaker as a result. I'm really sorry to see that you've rejected the Standard offer, I honestly think this is the first time I've seen anybody do that. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet I am all to contribute and will contribute without any incentive. That's what Wikimedia is for. I am preparing to contribute to Marathi and Sanskrit Wiktionaries. And have contributed in other language Wikipedias. I am prepared to become a disciplined editor on the English version of Wikipedia as well. Warm regards. AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that an 'appeal' consisting only of arguments where you rely on primary sources is going to be a winner. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

AlphaVictorDelta0107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I have reasons to be unblocked, for example, in here in the name section it states clearly that it description as "Commonly known name of person (defaults to article name, without disambiguation)" and that of birth name as "Name at birth, if different from 'name'." Yet when I tried to give the birth names of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon as they have a middle name and their "name" on the infobox is clearly different from their full "birth name", I was promptly reverted by User:Nikkimaria who said that I was against the infobox policy. That's why in the Wikipedia page of September 11 attacks I changed the term from "Islamist" to "Islamic" and was promptly reverted by Nikki, I had lost trust in her and thought that she was editing nonsense (me not realising her 21 year presence and more than 270000 edits on this platform), I engaged in a bit of an edit war before finally abandoning it. (I am not against any religion, it's just that the Wikipedia article says Islamic terrorism instead of Islamist terrorist, so it links better, I am absolutely apologetic for it) Other so called egregious offences were nothing but misunderstandings for example I was angrily warned to revert my edits on Kareena Kapoor with the editor User:Shshshsh saying that I had violated the manner of style for editing, I had not, I only removed the spaces in her birth date template and correctly stated in her infobox that her mother's name is Babita instead of Babita Kapoor as her mother is most famous and commonly known mononymously as Babita only, only for that to get reverted, one more is the editor User:GenevieveDEon whose statement found a mention on the thread on me where she says and I quote "Whilst I personally think you're probably right about Mamdani's nationality, you do need to provide sources. Please add reliable sources to the article to show that what you're adding is correct." All I did was in Mamdani's infobox was that I added the detail of the manner of acquisition of his citizenships, where I added "by birth" for his Ugandan citizenship, as Uganda did give birthright citizenship at the time of his birth, and to his US nationality which stated he acquired in 2018 linked it with naturalized as he is a naturalized citizen of the US I didn't add any extra info, and also for Mamdani's father's Khoja background, in the previous request thread I did link a YouTube video of Zeteo titled as "Mamdani CALLS OUT Trump for 'Celebrating' Netanyahu" on the 34:56 mark. As I said before, I am sorry for linking castes of Mira Nair and Surya Kant. I understand that even though I have local cultural awareness in this. It is just not reliable. For this is an International website and needs written reliable sources. Again I am sorry for my edit warring and would never dare to repeat this behaviour but it started because I was getting reverted on good edits (some of which were the corrections of my own mistakes) by the highly experienced editor Nikki and I didn't seek dispute resolution with the relevant authority. I am apologetic for my actions. I understand. But please view me and judge me fairly. I will answer and provide explanations to all your questions. I have provided explanations for my other infractions on my previous request threads. But in any case if they are not there then please ask me questions I will answer then properly. Warm regards, AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree with the other admins that you should take the standard offer, and re-apply in six months time. You should use this time to edit another Wikimedia project, and build up a track record of constructive editing. PhilKnight (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2026 (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.

AlphaVictorDelta, there's still time to remove this unblock request. This is your sixth unblock request and several administrators have advised you to take the WP:OFFER. At this point, you're likely getting close to the point at which your talk page access might get revoked, and that makes getting unblocked more challenging.

Six months would now be December 30th; your best option would be to delete this request before anyone acts on it, log out of English Wikipedia, and don't even think about logging in for the rest of 2026. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@CoffeeCrumbs, I am prepared to risk it. I have been blocked partially because I wasn't upto the standards and partially because of the other editors misunderstanding me and assuming bad faith. Let the admins ask me questions, I am prepared to answer 'em. Warm regards, AlphaVictorDelta (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I would argue that this is the latest poor choice you've made, and even first unblock requests that spend a lot of time blaming others almost universally fail, but it's your choice to make it, so I wish you good fortune. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

He/she is trying to explain his/her understanding of why he/she was blocked. He/she is not blaming other editors. He/she does not know how to explain it better.

The method he/she has chosen is to recount sequences of events, explaining his/her mistakes along the way. I think he/she probably does understand most of the mistakes he/she made that led to the block.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Toddy1 Hey Toddy, do you have any idea, about when the admins will respond? AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

AlphaVictorDelta0107 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I always wanted to edit Wikipedia for the best and most accurate information for all, because of a small dispute over editing that got escalated to the administration noticeboard and because I failed to respond to it, I got this severe punishment, had I provided my rational reasonings then and there, perhaps I would have been blocked for a small time or not blocked at all. Still I say that This block was necessary in the past when I was still a novice in my editing, and hadn't read all the policies thoroughly, now I have learnt a lot now, I am eager eager to share my knowledge to this platform and contribute constructively AND with discipline, This was my first block, and now I assure you that I wouldn't give you any reason to block me ever again, I ask for forgiveness, in any case go through my previous threads, you would indeed get context to my reason, I read through Wikipedia and am highly pained by the bad edits of others that I no longer can correct, please unblock and keep tabs on me, if I ever put another toe out of the line, ban me immediately without any warning, Please, I am a changed and wiser editor and person as a result of my ordeal. Warm regards, AlphaVictorDelta0107 (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Take the standard offer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 13 July 2026 (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.

To the reviewing admin, I have added a second block for six months, preventing access to this talk page. This is to enforce the terms of the WP:SO. If you decide to lift the original block, please also lift this (i.e. you'd be lifting two separate blocks). --Yamla (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

AlphaVictorDelta0107, assuming the talk page revocation stands, please do not come back here for at least six months and until you've made at least 500 trouble-free non-trivial edits on another wikimedia site. Your behaviour even after your block has been significantly disruptive, and it's not at all clear you understand this. There's no chance of an unblock until you can demonstrate you do understand this. --Yamla (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)