User talk:HistoricalQuest

March 2018[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Parmar has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Parmar was changed by HistoricalQuest (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.92892 on 2018-03-06T07:28:14+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are same as User:Kpowar, please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. utcursch | talk 12:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see WP:BRD -- if someone undoes your edits, you need to discuss them on the talk page instead of simply re-adding content without addressing the concerns raised by others. utcursch | talk 13:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

utcursch--It is also applicable to you because you are deleting the precise detailing without reading references and denying the fact . You can not avoid the reality . HistoricalQuest (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, राजा भोज[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, राजा भोज. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Bhoja. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Bhoja. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

To, Cahk-- Thank you for your suggestion . I have tried to add information on page Bhoja such as name of Kingdom of Bhoja with reference , but one member utcursch reverted my information & edits . I could not understand why he is doing it .HistoricalQuest (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Cahk (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Kpowar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. —SpacemanSpiff 06:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SpacemanSpiff Please check whether my edits are correct or not . Blocking is not the solution . And I don't think I have done any misbehave with anyone or committed wrong action . Just I am adding information . If this is wrong then you keep my ID blocked as it is . It is better to keep myself away . Thank you .

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HistoricalQuest (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Make this ID- User:HistoricalQuest unblocked . Please check my edits are correct or not . You may keep any other ID associated with this IP address blocked

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

HistoricalQuest (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block is not necessary , as I have not deleted any content of wikipedia . I have only added which was reverted by admins . I have tried to give references every time and reasons every time for the additions . And this is the process of wikipedia . As I am new member ,it may happen that I may have made mistake in view of admins . Now I understand the process . Direct edits are not allowed in wikipedia . I have to talk first with admin on that topic and if admin accept it , then only it will be edited finally . I understand why I have been blocked .I assure that I will not do anything which will be proved to be damage in the view of admins of the wikipedia . I will try to make positive useful contributions . I expect positive acceptance from admins in case of new additions .

Decline reason:

This request still does not address the reason for your block, which is the abuse of multiple accounts. You need to make your request on your original account and address the issue from there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I feel that admins has more concentration on the accounts than the matter of addition or edits . Instead of checking who is doing edits , it should be important that what matter has been added to pages . I could not understand how old books / data / Government records became obsolete & new books became authentic whereas new books are based on the old data with some modifications . Whatever it may be , Leave it . Thank you all of you for giving time .