Blazearon21
Welcome
edit
|
September 2016
edit
Hello, I'm Ryk72. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Hijra (South Asia), 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. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
October 2016
edit
Your addition to Men's rights movement in India has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Human rights in India. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Hijra (South Asia). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. It is a synthesis to extrapolate discussion of individual occurences to a general pattern; that is a conclusion that we need external, reliable sources to make, not Wikipedia editors. Do not edit war to include this. Discuss reasons for inclusion on the article Talk page. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
October 2016
edit Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Hijra (South Asia) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Hijra (South Asia) was changed by Blazearon21 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951745 on 2016-10-23T20:24:14+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Hijra (South Asia).
- 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 notice boards.
- 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, you may be blocked from editing. PepperBeast (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Brahmin. Donner60 (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Caution: please do not disrupt wikipedia with WP:Soap, unsourced content or content from blogs/unreliable sources
edit@Blazearon21: please review WP:RS, WP:DUE and WP:WWIN guidelines. Your edits at the Brahmin article are disruptive. If you need help in identifying reliable sources, please contact WP:TEAHOUSE. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Hijra (South Asia). PepperBeast (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
DSA-alert
edit
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.November 2016
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nanomedicine. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Indus Valley Civilisation. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
You are establishing a pattern of adding content that has one or more of the following qualities, all about various aspects of India, to WP: poorly sourced content; content with WP:UNDUE weight; promotional language.
Please review WP:SOAP, which is policy.
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
December 2016
edit Hello, I'm Zefr. Your recent edit to the page Nanomedicine appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Materialscientist (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
*Materialscientist:
Blazearon21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It was correct information I provided unblock me please,it wasn't information that can be regarded as incorrect information either besides if zefr has some kind of clarification it should have been sorted out in the article talk page which I can't do now that I've been blocked,if something is mentioned in the talk page people don't respond at all most of the time with few exceptions,so please unblock me and let me talk this out with Zefr and please tell me when the blocking period ends Blazearon21 (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You've been blocked for disruptive editing, so it's your behavior at fault, not necessarily the accuracy of your edits. Your block expires in a weeks time. PhilKnight (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2016 (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.
.
The Indus Valley Civilization doesn't equate to India
editYou should know that. Please don't do this sort of thing again, if it becomes a pattern it will be a violation of the discretionary sanctions mentioned above. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Misrepresentation of source at Timeline of carbon nanotubes
editYou wrote that "Carbon nanotubes have been used in the manufacturing process of wootz steel since ancient times in India." The source[1] says nothing of the kind. It says "At high temperatures, the impurities in the Indian ores could have catalysed the growth of nanotubes from carbon in the burning wood and leaves used to make the wootz, Paufler suggests. These tubes could then have filled with cementite to produce the wires in the patterned blades, he says." That's not use of carbon nanotubes. No one would have known that was happening, let alone have 'used' them somehow. Worse, the source makes it clear it is speculation, but you stated it as fact. Again, this is part of a pattern as mentioned by @Jytdog: and the same sort of thing you were warned for by User:Kautilya3 and User:Ryk72. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Final warning
editIt's obvious that you are not abiding by policies and continue to edit disruptively despite multiple editors trying to reason with you. If this behavior continues then you will be topic banned from the area and/or blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 13:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 22
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Dalits, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Naik and Corps of Signals. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
June 2017
edit Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Indo-European migrations, did not appear constructive and has 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 the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Indianisation. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been 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 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
edit
Hello, Blazearon21. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Fake edit summaries
editI think you have been told about this type of thing before but your edit summary here is false. Not only were there in fact two sources cited for the point that you appear to claim was unsourced but those sources do in fact mention the community in connection with the martial art. You really do need to stop this type of thing. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, please note the information below. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Karna
editHello, I’m Yelets from zhwp. Firstly, thank you for your contributions to the articles about Mahabharata. Recently the article Karna was locked because of vandalism, and I can’t edit this article as there are only 40 contributions of me. Yesterday, I checked it about whether it can be edited by me, and if so I will add some refs. At that time I found you had deleted the chapter “Celestial Weapons”, and as I know though the chapter lacks ref, it’s not hard to find refs in the Mahabharata. I will appreciate it if you could explain why you deleted it. Happy editing. Vasavi Shakti (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
New article proposed - "Weapons of power in Hindu epics"
editDiscussion of a proposed consolidated Weapons of power in Hindu epics article is at Talk:Kurukshetra War#New article proposed - "Weapons of power in Hindu epics". --Bejnar (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Obviously self-published sources
edit Please stop adding unsourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please do not use obviously self-published sources such as this, or sources from self-publishing companies such as Xlibris (see Xlibris Corporation). I have undone some of your recent edits. For your large edit to Gravity (undone here), I suggest you open a section on the article talk page Talk:Gravity and discuss with the other editors to get a wp:CONSENSUS about what might be wp:DUE. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: as this was not the first time you did this, I have added a formal warning here. - DVdm (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
August 2018
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC) Blazearon21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I believe the reason stated "abuse of editing priveleges" is invalid when Wikipedia only warned me of self published sources and their verifiability when I cited it and does not provide any concrete information on whether they're information can be trusted or not when I clicked publish changes and asked me to verify it ,I assumed that since the information has been represented accurately in other non self published reliable sources,and the same information is being published in the self published source and thus aggreable that the verifiability of the information in the self published source is reliable and acted within the reasonable warning I was given about self published sources when I clicked publish changes. Therefore I believe it's an overreaction to block my account as i am not experienced on the level of an administrator and only a newcomer with limited experience and I have only been blocked once before for disruptive editing and portraying it as a long history of abuse to block my account indefinitely from there onwards,by using such shady warnings about self published sources is ludicrous, I believe unfairly treated with the standards of a SAT exam for editing Wikipedia the free encyclopedia.Also please explain why my activity on the page gravity is ground for indefinite blocking as I have not committed disruptive editing but only included information I've found on google books and been corrected on the sources by another user who has undone my recent edits.I believe my blocking is an abuse of administrator priveleges and this time unlike the previous incident is highly unwarranted and high handed against ordinary editors and request to you undo my blocking as I have only made the edits in good faith and not as disruptive editing or vandalism and have only the edited this section of the page gravityonce before according to my memory and when I found it removed without any given reason I reincluded it along with new information I had obtained. Blazearon21 (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You don't have to be an experienced user or administrator to heed warnings and listen to advice on your user talk page(this page). You may have been acting in good faith, but that doesn't permit you to be disruptive with your editing and since you were, any administrator would have the responsibility to stop your disruption. Upon examination of some of your edits, I agree with the reason that you were blocked; as (based on what I read here) you don't seem to think you did anything wrong, I am declining your request. To be unblocked, you will need to acknowledge your errors and tell how you will edit differently in the future. It might help you to read about reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2018 (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.
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
edit Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from History of gravitational theory to Gravity (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)