My Talk page Anubhavklal (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Redpapers, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks.nsf/redpapers. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Redpapers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel this concept is notable, then create an entirely new article on the subject. As you were told before, "[y]ou may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words." --Orange Mike | Talk 15:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Redpapers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Automated Workflow Pvt Ltd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marathi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (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 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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anubhavklal. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anubhavklal. 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)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anubhavklal. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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, Anubhavklal. 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]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

∯WBG^converse 19:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to your's continuing to push a pro-Hindutva/BJP spin in our articles, the most probable consequence will be a revocation of editing privileges. You have been over here, for long enough to know about WP:NPOV and WP:V. Best, ∯WBG^converse 19:46, 9 November 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at New Yamuna Bridge. 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. Do not change Allahabad to Prayagraj. Follow WP:COMMONNAME. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm MarkH21. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kashmir conflict, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You're welcome to propose the renaming of Mughalsarai and all the other articles. But until such a proposal passes, please don't go around changing how these places are referred to within other articles. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Faizabad. 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. Thank you. — DaxServer (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what was disruptive in my edit Anubhavklal 15:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

As per the explanation in the "Place names" section immediately above, you are still changing from our article titles, which we use as per WP:COMMONNAME, to official titles, which we do not necessarily use, as per WP:OFFICIALNAME. - Arjayay (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing the names of places in articles to different spellings to those used as our article titles, as you did at Faizabad. We use the WP:COMMONNAME in English for our articles, not the "official" names, so changing the spelling breaks wikilinks to those articles and is confusing to our readers. You have been told about this before, but you continue making the same disruptive edits.^{16:56, 5 November 2021,17:15, 5 November 2021‎}-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Allahabad district.
It has been repeatedly explained, and you have been repeatedly warned, about changing placenames. but are still doing it - please stop before you are blocked - Arjayay (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made to the articles on Ayodhya‎, Faizabad‎, Allahabad district and various Indian railway stations, where you have been repeatedly changing the common names for districts in India that Wikipedia uses as article names to official names, although 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Ayodhya 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. Thanks.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ayodhya. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Ayodhya, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you recently made an edit to the article on Mughalsarai Junction railway station that changed the lead in an unhelpful way. As you know (because you have been told it before), on English-language Wikipedia, we use the commonly used English-language names for places (see WP:COMMONNAME). These are not necessarily the same as so-called "official names" imposed by politicians. You changed the first paragraph of the article on Mughalsarai Junction railway station so that it did not have the article name leading. This confuses our readers. Please do not do it again.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mughalsarai Junction railway station.
You have repeatedly been told, above, not to change the names/spellings of places to different names/spellings to those used in our article tiles but are still doing it - please stop before you are blocked - again - Arjayay (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anubhavklal! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Allahabad Airport that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Anubhavklal 19:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Faizabad division. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Capitals00 (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Weller talk 10:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear how my edit is disrupive. On what basis is the magazine called a propaganda outlet? Is there any rule in Wikipedia which prohibits removing such POV Anubhavklal (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just guessing but the problem I see is a violation of WP:VERIFY and I guess WP:NOR, ie the magazine isn't called a propaganda outlet and "self-proclaimed" isn't sourced. Doug Weller talk 14:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eminent historian isn't sourced either. So mentioning eminent historian violates WP: VERIFY

How does propoganda outlet qualify as NPOV? Anubhavklal (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

propaganda outlet is unsourced. Eminent historian is sourced - looks like you didn't check. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you reverted my correction of propaganda outlet also. Was it because of your personal bias? My intent was only to make Wikipedia better. Anubhavklal (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doug Weller: This user has violated WP:1RR on Bharatiya Janta Party.[1][2] See the 1RR notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Bharatiya_Janata_Party. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now another revert. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pls stop vandalising the page. If you have constructive edits to improve the article, you are welcome Anubhavklal (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOTVAND to know what is vandalism and what isn't. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

RegentsPark (comment) 16:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

• @Doug Weller and RegentsPark: This user has violated WP:1RR on Bharatiya Janta Party again and learned nothing from last block.[3][4] Not to mention, he is misrepresenting source with his edit war. See Talk:Bharatiya_Janata_Party#Deletion_of_a_Congress_landslide_victory_in_1984_due_to_a_sympathy_wave. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

RegentsPark (comment) 05:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at 2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly election, you may be blocked from editing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you please specify which of my edit has violated the policy? Is asking for citation wrong? Or is tagging of pov wrong? Anubhavklal (talk) 05:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account made 4 edits to the article on the 2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly election between 17:17 and 17:23 7 March 2023 (UTC). This is a diff of those edits. One new paragraph was added and changes were made to two paragraphs.

Your Belagavi border dispute paragraph 2 looks like personal commentary. The paragraph needed a citation to a reliable source. If the source was an opinion column, then the text should have been worded as something like "Bridget Kendall said that...".

Your edit to Communal Issues paragraph 1 changed text that was supported by citations. You should have looked at what the citations said, before you started changing it to reflect your understanding of the situation. The article from The Week that was cited had a quotation from Siddaramaiah: As the Karnataka polls are nearing the BJP raking up more and more communal issues to divide people and polarise the votes.... What you did was not OK, even though you meant well. It would have been an improvement to the paragraph to have made it clearer who made the statement and which source supported the statement. It was not right to change the meaning of the statement.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your point Anubhavklal (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Mughalsarai–Kanpur section, you may be blocked from editing. Follow the WP:COMMONNAME and do not move articles unilaterally without WP:CONSENSUS. You have already been blocked before. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anubhavklal! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Allahabad High Court that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok. So that means that change should not be marked as minor. Bit I don't understand why you reverted it? Anubhavklal (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. This explains the process for setting up a discussion about moving a page. In some of your talk page comments you reveal that you know that the page moves you want to make have a political aspect. Any proposed move that has a political aspect should use the process at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. The process works as follows:

1. You fill in the templates as instructed, saying why the move should happen. Please note that we expect evidence, not just your opinion.
2. There is a move discussion for about a week.
3. An independent person adjudicates.

Making controversial page moves without discussion annoys people. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I will follow the process. I don't want a good stuff like Wikipedia to be hijacked by some vandals like you. You can choose to cooperate and make Wikipedia as an unbiased source, or keep propogating your agenda. That is totally your choice.

I am sure more neutral people will ne reading this talk page and do the needful, if you decide to block me Anubhavklal (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from making WP:UNCIVIL comments, when you are the one moving articles unilaterally and contravening WP:COMMONNAME. You got blocked for disruptive behavior recently, you need to be careful. Note that Germany is not official name of the country, but it is the common name used in English Wikipedia. You need to respect the guidelines and the policies of Wikipedia. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I might not have followed the correct process for page move due to lack of awareness of the right process, but can you explain which part of my comment was not civil?

I am willing to apologise if it is proven that I have said anything wrong in my comment. Else I leave it for the other readers to decide. Anubhavklal (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here, phrases like → "...vandals like you" and "..keep propogating your agenda" − should not be used. I hope you understand. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Anubhavklal (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You asked how to go about getting pages moved when other people are likely to disagree with you. So I told you (see post of 09:22, 23 June 2023 above). Please could you use that process instead of continuing to make controversial moves without a proper discussion. That a like-minded editor made a post on the talk page a few months ago is not sufficient justification.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you moving articles without consensus? You have to wait for the RfC here to be over. All the relevant articles on the section, division, etc will depend on it. If you want you can start requests at individual pages, you can do that like how you did it in this talk page. Whatever you are doing is disruptive, for which you got blocked remember. Let the RfC at the main article 'Mughalsarai Junction' complete. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Aurangabad. Don't be disruptive. Consider this your last warning. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not know already, infobox name parameter and article title should match per template documentation, guidelines and policies. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mughalsarai. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Stop edit warring when we have a policy on it. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened the discussion on relevant policy. Check it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I requested you to do. Not to remove any information unilaterally which may be disputed by others. You can check my earlier comments. All I have been asking for was a consensus Anubhavklal (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus not even required if the person never lived in the city. And we have a specific policy for it. You are unnecessarily arguing. Why don't you request Mukesh (singer)'s name to be added in List of people from Detroit, because he died there. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway keep the discussion in the talk page. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mughalsarai. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Stop edit warring. And stop disrespecting Wikipedia policies. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the article on the Mughalsarai–Kanpur section‎ there is a "citation needed" tag next to the claim that the official name is "Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction–Kanpur section". You tried to fix this, but made a number of errors:

• The citation you added was an official document that used the name: "Kanpur - Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay (CNB-DDU) section", i.e. a different name.
• You completed the citation template incorrectly. The field marked "title" is meant to have the document title, not a repeat of the URL. There are other fields such as date, and the name of the organisation that issued the document that needed to be added.
• If you had provided a correct citation, then you should have removed the "citation needed" tag after you added the citation.

If you think that the official name for the section is the one used in that document, then what you should do is to change wording of the official name in the article (including the infobox) to the name used in that document and have another go at completing the citation template.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you move a page disruptively, as you did at Talk:Mahayogi Gorakhnath Airport. Stop moving articles without closer. And you are not suppose to close the RM, an uninvolved user/admin is supposed to to that. Stop disrespecting Wikipedia policies. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment that you wanted guidance regarding policies, and I can see from your editing that it is very much the case. If you have any doubts regarding any policy, you can ping me and get it clarified.

However I would tell you to go through a couple of pages first WP:RGW, WP:AGF, WP:BRD, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BLUDGEON. You are not a new editor, and still many of your edits are borderline violations of these policies. I dont think they are made in bad faith, but it would be better to correct those issues. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Allahabad Chheoki Junction railway station. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should looks at links posted by Captain Jack Sparrow above. Backlinking multiple times is discouraged, you should respect Wikipedia policies. Secondly, you shouldn't change the longstanding sentences on cities just because you hate the term "Mughalsarai", and seem to go at any lengths to circumvent it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for which I (or any sensible person) do not support the name, which @Fylindfotberserk call hate, is that it is an old and less common name now. We must keep the information current to be useful for readers. Anything which makes Wikipedia obsolete must be "hated", if that is the phrase you prefer. Anubhavklal (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits imply that you support moving the article on the Mughalsarai–Kanpur section to Kanpur - Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay (CNB-DDU) section. Please could you make an explicit statement in the move discussion at Talk:Mughalsarai–Kanpur section#Requested move 1 July 2023 saying whether you now prefer that name to the one your originally proposed, and saying why you think that name is best.

We try to work collaboratively, and one of the benefits of move discussions that sometimes a better name arises in the discussion. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Lourdes 20:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Doing a good job but acting unilaterally, and not awaiting consensus -- is not how we do stuff here. Please confirm you will not again move articles until there is consensus for the move (assessed not by you, but by an uninvolved editor, or by the editorial group discussing the move in unison). Until then, you will remain blocked, or for a month, whichever comes sooner. Thanks, Lourdes 20:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Within a day after the block expired...

  • Special:Permalink/1171468892#Requested move 20 August 2023 - moratorium was being discussed, last RM closed as not moved in July
  • Special:Permalink/1171534874#Requested move 20 August 2023 - last RM closed as not moved in July
  • Special:Permalink/1171503921#Requested move 21 August 2023 - last RM closed as not moved in July

  I see a WP:CIR issue here, along with a clear disruption. I'd argue for a WP:TBAN on moves and RMs — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anubhavklal has also just started other requested moves at Talk:Hubli#Requested move 20 August 2023 and Talk:Hubli railway division#Requested move 21 August 2023. In both cases the only evidence for the move is an assertion by Anubhavklal. When people are proposing moves they are expected to do some research and present some evidence. Anubhavklal does not seem to realise that.

Part of the problem is that though he/she has had an account since April 2007, he/she has not used it much - hence only 873 edits, or which 460 were in 2023. He/she is not good at presenting and assessing evidence. For example in Talk:Faizabad Junction railway station#Requested move 1 July 2023, Anubhavklal presented five links as evidence, but only one of them was relevant.

He/she does get some things right, but he/she is trying to do too many difficult things too quickly.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at User talk:Anubhavklal#Disambiguation link notification for August 21 you will see that he/she responded usefully to the message, and fixed the problem that he/she inadvertently caused.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lourdes: Now this user is carrying out a completely WP:LAME edit war on Hindu Mahasabha. He is adding unsourced statement "which it refers as Muslim appeasement politics," while also adding tag "{{Citation needed|date=September 2023}}" for his own addition! Aside that in the same edit, he is also disputing the undisputed fact that Nahturam Godse was a member of this group. Either a longer block or topic ban should be issued now. Thanks Editorkamran (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine that someone rewrote the Indian campaign of Alexander the Great in terms of present-day politics. They would say how the Pakistan Army saved the Republic Of India from annexation by Macedonia. Such an edit would be reverted, because imposing the present on the past makes a nonsense of the past. Your edit to the article on Faizabad also tried to impose the present on the past, and therefore made a nonsense of it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prayagraj division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kanpur district. 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) 06:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anubhavklal. I am writing to let you know that your closure of Talk:Ahmedabad–Allahabad Weekly Superfast Express#Requested move 22 August 2023 was contrary to Wikipedia policy, and to request that you agree to reopening the discussion. Closing a requested-move discussion is an administrative action subject to WP:INVOLVED – even if the closer is not an administrator. That policy page states, among other things, that "editors closing such discussions should not have been involved in the discussion itself or related disputes."

This is further explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. It is not appropriate for the person who proposes a requested move to close the discussion – unless it is to withdraw the request. Additionally, requested-move discussions should normally remain open for a minimum of 7 days.

The administrator Lourdes also urged you above to wait for "consensus for the move (assessed not by you, but by an uninvolved editor, or by the editorial group discussing the move in unison)."

Please reopen the discussion by reverting to this edit: Special:Permalink/1171700364. If you would prefer, I can reopen it for you (if you agree below). If you do not agree to reopen or to allow me reopen, I will ask an administrator to reopen your request. (Once reopened, the article will be returned to the previous title until the discussion is closed by an uninvolved editor.)

SilverLocust 💬 06:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not able to understand what is the dispute here Anubhavklal (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you open a request-move discussion, Wikipedia policy says you should not also close the discussion. Please agree to let me revert the closure or I will ask an administrator to do so. SilverLocust 💬 06:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I now see from this incident report at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that this was at least your fourth time closing your own requested moves, which was part of what led to your most recent block. If you do not agree voluntarily to having your closure and move undone, then I think it will be necessary to request that you be banned from moves and from move discussions, as DaxServer suggested above. But I will first wait 24 hours for any response you have. SilverLocust 💬 09:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to any change you want to do as per guidelines. But please let me know where was the dispute here? Anubhavklal (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have a view on what the page's title should be, if that is what you mean by "the dispute". All that I am saying is that the move needs to wait until the requested move is closed by someone who is not involved. I will go ahead with reopening the discussion and restoring the original title while it remains open. Thanks. SilverLocust 💬 10:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anubhavklal: Some advice:

• Revert (1) the closure you made at Talk:Ahmedabad–Allahabad Weekly Superfast Express#Requested move 22 August 2023, (2) revert the move of the article, and (3) revert the edits you made to the article after you moved it. Use edit summaries that explain what you are doing, and that you made a mistake when closing the move request.
  The advantage of this is that it gets you out of your current trouble.
• If you propose a move discussion or express an opinion in a move discussion you are involved. That means that it is forbidden for you to close the move discussion.
  You can get blocked for what you are doing.
• If the closer of a move discussion makes the wrong decision (in your opinion), there is a process for dealing with this. (1) You should discuss it with the person who closed it on their talk page, or on the article talk page. [I take it you know about pinging users to get their attention?] (2) If you are still not satisfied, Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.
  Do not start another move discussion on the same page requesting the same move a few weeks later, which is what you have been doing since your most recent block expired on 20 August 2023.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do not mind but I have corrected the URL you gave as evidence in support of the move at Talk:Hubli railway division. The URL you gave did not work because it was missing part of the information. By a bit trial-and-error I managed to find what I think is the URL you meant and have corrected the URL you meant. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anubhavklal: There are categories associated with various pages. There is a process for renaming categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Since you seem to believe that new names for Indian cities, divisions, districts, railway divisions, etc. should be used, please could you take a look at categories associated with Allahabad. Do you think these ought to be renamed from "Allahabad..." to "Prayagraj..."? Another editor has tried to solve this without using the correct process; he/she has tried creating new categories and populating them by editing articles (for example look at the recent edit history for Prayagraj railway division). This seems like the category equivalent of a cut-and-paste move. He/she probably does not know about how to do a category move discussion. But you with your experience of page move discussions could fix this problem - but using the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion process.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Toddy1: See User talk:FlyJet777#Manually moving categories - I spent almost an hour cleaning up after them earlier today, with more still to do. The specific process that should have been followed is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy/WP:C2D. When Anubhavklal did try to rename categories earlier, they did it in a differently-malformed way, in the history of Category:Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya railway division and its talk page (which I later followed the proper process to move to the new name), Category:Railway stations in Prayagraj district (which FlyJet777 later cut-and-paste moved and I history merged). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the entire Category:Allahabad district tree at WP:CFDS, where it should get renamed in two days if there are no objections, to hopefully put a stop to the repeated cut-and-paste moves and malformed filings in this area. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Toddy1 @Pppery I will go through the process and learn how to do it.

I have been refraining to make changes now as I have been blocked multiple times recently due to not following process. Though I believe it happened because I did not agree with certain POV Anubhavklal (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anubhavklal. This is regarding a badge that you have displayed at your user page. You have kept Experienced Editor badge but you dont satisfy its requirements. Although age of your age satisfies that but your edits count doesn't. You just have made 958 edits by now. So you aren't even an Apprentice Editor till now. But you are very close to it. You are required to fulfill both the requirements. So please correct that. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaan Sengupta Can you please share the link to the requirements so that I can make the corrections to my badge accordingly Anubhavklal (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Service awards#Apprentice Editor (or Novato) and Wikipedia:Service awards#Experienced Editor (or Grognard Mirabilaire). The tables show requirements at the last of each column. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Shaan Sengupta Anubhavklal (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and/or Afghanistan.

You have been sanctioned for persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content, recently for example edit warring at Hindu Mahasabha to force in unsourced text about "Muslim appeasement politics". Even though you have been warned about that particular edit war, you apparently believe that you're free to add unsourced content as long as you also add a "citation needed" tag or a "who" tag. As you have been told, tags aren't get-out-of-jail-free cards for adding content without sources; if you don't have a source, don't add the content.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 17:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that. You can't edit subjects covered by your topic ban, but more edits like that one might get you blocked. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At 17:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC) you were told that you have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and/or Afghanistan.

That means that you have to stop editing pages concerning India. Hubli is in the Indian state of Karnataka, so you are not allowed to make edits like this one of 07:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC).

The way to beat topic bans is to behave yourself and make useful edits that do not show the faults that led to your getting a topic ban. Then after maybe six months say that you are sorry for the bad behaviour the caused you to get topic-banned, and that you have mended your ways, and ask nicely whether admins would consider lifting the topic ban some time... -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Anubhavklal, did you not understand my notice about a topic ban? As Toddy says, you're not allowed to edit any page concerning India (or Pakistan, or Afghanistan). I imposed the topic ban because you kept adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. You can't just ignore this ban. If you violate the ban again, you will be blocked. And please do read WP:TBAN, it will help you. It is quite short. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Was this IP edit by you?-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have already decided to block me, please go ahead and do it directly. No need for these cheap tricks, whoever is doing it. Anubhavklal (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer Toddy1's question in a straightforward way, yes or no, or I will block you. Bishonen | tålk 16:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

No. I have no role in the said edit. Anubhavklal (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Anubhavklal. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban, per this AE request, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Galobtter (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."