Hello, संदेश हिवाळे, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —SpacemanSpiff 07:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to B. R. Ambedkar. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at B. R. Ambedkar 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 article's 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. Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at BR Ambedkar.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. JimRenge (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at B. R. Ambedkar 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 article's 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. Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm JimRenge. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Statue of Equality, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Religion in South Korea, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Meters (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Religion in Mongolia. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop replacing reliably sourced data with unsourced or poorly sourced information. The religion statistics include the people with no religion. You cannot simply quote the percentage of the religious people who are a particular religion. Meters (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at List of Marathi people. Meters (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello संदेश हिवाळे, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Religion in China has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — JimRenge (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or improperly cited material to Wikipedia, as you did at Religion in Laos. [1] does not appear to be a reliable source, it cites wikipedia (WP:CIRCULAR). [2] appears to be a dead link. Please stop inflating the number of Buddhists in country X based upon non reliable sources. Please see WP:NOT, WP:BURDEN, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV for more information. JimRenge (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. Widr (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. —SpacemanSpiff 09:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at B. R. Ambedkar, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Mahar, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. We don't use honorifics and titles in article body. utcursch | talk 18:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm JimRenge. An edit that you recently made to Spring Temple Buddha seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! JimRenge (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. —SpacemanSpiff 01:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. —SpacemanSpiff 12:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)The article Vaman Tabaji Kardak has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the ((prod blp/dated)) tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Laurdecl talk 09:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Sandesh9822 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
No reason given to consider lifting this block. Yamla (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sandesh9822 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
give me a final chance as I shameful for the vandalism of Wikipedia rules. I am sorry the inconvenience caused please unblock me संदेश हिवाळे (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Under the circumstances, a standard offer approach could be taken in this case. PhilKnight (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Your blanking of my unblock decline shows you still don't understand Wikipedia's policies. This makes it hard to believe you'd edit appropriately if unblocked. Do so again and I will revoke your talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Sandesh9822 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I admit that I had done disruptive editing on english Wikipedia but now I have taken sufficient experience in a year in knowing what all contents are acceptable on Wikipedia. I have read all the related policies and guidelines I have completed more than 21,000 global edits and believe I can really be able to move on and enrich the contents of Wikipedia. Please assume good faith in me as I believe not to give even a chance to continue my old crap! संदेश हिवाळे (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
After consulting with the blocking admin, and considering the comments at User talk:SpacemanSpiff#User talk:संदेश_हिवाळे and those below, I do not feel I can unblock unconditionally at this point. If you wish to make a further unblock request, can I suggest a couple of things? Firstly, I think a detailed explanation of your past problems and a detailed forward plan for avoiding any repeats would be of benefit. Secondly, you might want to consider a voluntary topic ban along the lines suggested below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@Boing! said Zebedee: I agree with Topic ban from B. R. Ambedkar and associated articles. I promise not to repeat my old mistake again.संदेश हिवाळे (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Sitush: thank you for your advice I'll work on it. संदेश हिवाळे (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Unblock proposal *I would be willing to unblock on the following conditions (on consulting with Boing! said Zebedee :
|
@SpacemanSpiff: and @Boing! said Zebedee: I agree to the conditions above. संदेश हिवाळे (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I have unblocked you per your acceptance of the unblock conditions. Just to reiterate:
I will leave a welcome message at the top of this page, please read through the links to get a better understanding of policies and guidelines. Happy editing! —SpacemanSpiff 07:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Frietjes:
Please add again ((User Ambedkarism)) in my user page. your edit. संदेश हिवाळे (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)