Jku456
Welcome Jku456!
I'm Rasnaboy, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your userpage.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Hijabophobia is related to Islamophobia
editHijabophobia is related to Islamophobia because hijab is black in color and it is wear by muslim women. Hijabophobia show that how muslim women are oppressed by islam Jku456 (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Erm, I'm not sure that makes much sense to me - it sounds rather muddled. Anyway, that's not the question I asked you, so I'm not sure why you're answering a question I didn't ask?
I don't think you understand what "see also" sections are for - they are not for collecting every tenuous link you think might relate to something - read WP:SEEALSO and stop shoehorning inappropriate links into articles. There'll be a review of the many "see alsos" you've been adding and I imagine a lot of them will be removed. -- Begoon 20:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
"See also" entries
editPlease stop adding tenuous, barely related "See also" entries to articles. Read and understand WP:SEEALSO, which says "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number."
Many of the links you are adding do not meet this requirement, and your additions are becoming disruptive. Thank you. -- Begoon 11:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Please do not delete Lingam from the also see page
editLingam is part of Hinduism culture, even I also follow Hinduism Jku456 (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Many things are "part of Hinduism culture" yet do not require links from that article. Since there is no existing link in the article, I suppose that one could be just about justified, I'll replace it - but please be roughly a hundred times more selective than you are being with these additions - bloated "see also" sections become useless and confusing. -- Begoon 11:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with Begoon. There are literally thousands of things that are "part of Hindu culture". The "See also" section is not meant for this purpose. utcursch | talk 14:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
October 2019
edit
Your recent editing history at Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
You need to stop adding irrelevant see also entries and start communicating
editSeriously. If you can't actually communicate you should not be editing, communication between editors is vital. I won't block you myself but I will report you to WP:ANI. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
October 2019
edit You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Criticism of Islam.
- Despite the warnings from more than one user to stop doing this, you have continued to add tenuous see-also entries to articles. A certain amount of leeway is shown to new users while they are still "learning" but you have just about exhausted yours. There won't be any more warnings. Begoon 06:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at P.N. Oak. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Harshil want to talk? 06:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
See alsos... again...
editLook, I'm getting really tired of telling you this - but you obviously don't understand what see alsos are for, despite all the links and explanations you've been given by experienced editors. Here, to Anti-Russian sentiment you add, and you must be kidding, surely(?) - a mode of a video game... Along with your latest swathe of tenuous, irrelevant additions to Criticism of Islam, again (after everything you've been told)..., my patience is now at an end.
Let me make myself perfectly clear - if I see just one more tenuous or irrelevant see also addition from you then I will ask for you to be blocked, to protect the encyclopedia from what I can only describe as your complete incompetence in this area. Please try to find something else to do, which you actually understand, and stop making a mess for other people to clean up. -- Begoon 18:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Ok - this was the "one more" I warned about - so you tell me what I should do now? You are obviously not listening (WP:IDHT) and your competence doesn't seem to be improving (WP:CIR), so, unless you can give me a very good reason not to, very soon, I'm going to start a wider discussion about what (and whether) you should be allowed to edit here, which may result in restrictions being placed on your editing. -- Begoon 05:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
edit | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
November 2019
edit You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Vietnam War.
- WP:SEEALSO, which you've now been told to read roughly a dozen times or more, states that articles already linked in the main article should not be linked again.
- This really is your final warning - there will be no more... Begoon 14:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
December 2019
edit
You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Hinduism. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.
- What on earth is wrong with you? An article about a science fiction movie is in no way suitable for the see-also section on Hinduism.
- The next conversation we have about your continued disruption after clear warnings will be at the Administrators' notice board, where I will ask for you to be prevented from continuing. Stop now to avoid that. Begoon 09:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Don't post on my talk page every time an edit of yours is reverted asking why. The reasons are given in the edit summary or in the many conversations we have had about your complete inability to judge what is a good "see also". Just stop adding them, you clearly do not have the required judgement to do it sensibly, and you are very close to me asking for you to be blocked as a net negative who provides far less value than the time taken to clean up the messes you make. -- Begoon 20:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Private military company; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Begoon 19:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Also take clear note that editing logged out to avoid scrutiny of your edits as you did here is a violation of WP:SOCK, and a very quick way to get yourself blocked or banned. -- Begoon 07:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- And with regard to your message on my talk page - it was clearly you. Please don't insult my intelligence. The overlap in editing between you and that IP is so obvious a blind five-year old could see it. It also leads me to ask you this: what other accounts have you used to edit wikipedia? Answer honestly - your IP edits were a really bad move and led to some obvious connections, so when answering don't insult my intelligence again, because it will be very obvious if you are not truthful. -- Begoon 08:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Talk page
editDon't post on my talk page again, ever, for any reason - it takes me some small part of a second to revert and I have better things to do with my time than to waste even that tiny amount of it removing the drivel of pathetic, clueless socks. You are very unwelcome there. kthxbai. -- Begoon 13:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Remove the block
editi am inoccent please remove block I did not done any collateral damage I just upload the photo of weapon and i do not how to register the author of the photo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jku456 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Please google "the other one has bells on it", and bear in mind at all times that, although you may indeed be as utterly clueless as this comment seems to confirm, we are certainly not. You could look at WP:Standard offer if you think you can restrain yourself from (blindingly obvious) socking and incompetent disruption with accounts or IPs for six months, but I really doubt you can do that, and I really doubt any potential unblocker will trust you in any event after your performances to date. Oh what a tangled web we weave, eh...? -- Begoon 12:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
And another thing, I do not Nittin Das and I am from assam rifle regiment . I just started my wikipedia career to upload photo of weapon on wikipedia and also to write military or paramilitary related in information and also to write information related to India.For example:List of paramilitary organizations,hinduism etc
Sorry my english is not so good but I wanted some discussion with some one who can guide me.
You see my amount https://m.facebook.com/alapan.mukherjee.39?tsid=0.14470429440442656&source=result — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jku456 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Please explain to Dreamy Jazz.I am not Nitin das
I am not Nittin das
editI am neither Nittin dad nor I am sockpuppet of nittin das Jku456 (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)