Hello, Orientls, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! We're so glad you're here! Calypsomusic (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from M. S. Golwalkar  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Umayyad campaigns in India. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 lead to a block.

Infobox changes require consensus. Please do not WP:edit war. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== Disruptive editing ==

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-Aryan_languages, 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. Axomika (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Blocked indefinitely for false accusations.[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Map creator refuses to engage in discussion despite evidence showing contrary. Also being subjected to racist attacks.. GMG^talk 16:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was a funny thread.[1] Orientls (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you 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.

Template:Z33 Mar4d (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are to be notified of this report--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Regional power does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. You need to enable the warning for omitting edit summary. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Mar4d (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i have merged Opéra bouffon to Opera buffa as there was a merge tag see Talk:Opéra bouffon before reverting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:308F:7CE6:EF9A:8A98 (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Maddison was a leading scholar and specialist on the economic history of GNP. Wikipedia depends on research of major scholars like him to provide reliable secondary sources that we summarize the OR rules applies NOT to scholars but only to Wiki editors who make new claims not supported by a reliable source. the rule = Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Rjensen (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you 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 BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. zzz (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Orientls. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

with these edits diff ahead, D4i4na has controversially inflated the casualty figures in the article, without consensus, he has have been reverted by me and per BRD you are supposed to make consensus instead of edit warring. [2] [3]. I have followed BRD here, instead of accusing me of Edit warring why don't you make arguments to explain the edits.

You are seen as tag teaming to revert the article to your preferred non consensus version. I suggest you to self revert and join the talk page discussion. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. DBigXrayᗙ 11:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in, is in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate as to why you say Sikkim was not independent post-1946? I added that change to a few articles besides the two you reverted, but, as far as I know, that information is correct. Sikkim was independent, since it joined India in 1975. ARR8 (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sikkim was independent since 1861 too because it became British India's protectorate by the treaty of 1861, and at the time of independence India assumed those responsibilities. India signed a treaty with Sikkim's ruler that sustained Sikkim's protectorate status so the protectorate status in this sense was sustained since 1861 to 1975.  You should be providing sources for saying Sikkim became independent in 1947. Orientls (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'll revert my other edits on this topic. Thanks for the info. ARR8 (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I've clearly mentioned in my edit, there's no legitimate source that states that the Marathas had won the war. So it needs citation. Secondly, the additional claims you've made along with it doesn't match the citations you've affixed. So you've not restored any sourced claim, but a misleading claim. The citations do not state that the "Marathas had quickly regained the lost territories." Furthermore, in that section you must only mention the outcome of the war which actually seems to be inconclusive, at the moment, and not what happened before or after it, which is irrelevant. Chippy pest (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Squatch347 (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Orientls, please see the final resolution of the dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Orientls_reported_by_User:Squatch347_(Result:_Protected_the_redirect). The result was to merge the article and protect it from disruptive editing. Squatch347 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, let's stop with the slander of accusing me of being a sockmaster. The only accusation of being a sockmaster on my record was made by you, and rejected by the admin that did the investigation. If you review the closing comments you'll note that the adjudication was done because there has been no expansion of the article in a year, it remains a stub. Finally, your assessment of the positions is incorrect; 2 voted against the merge (you and desmay (RebeccaGreen labelled hers as a question and the IP was shown to be a sock of Falconfly)) and 5 for the merge (Otr500, myself, Aurornisxui, MarkAQuinn (not sure why you think he is a sock), Elmidae) Squatch347 (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]