User talk:R2dra

Concern regarding Draft:Sincryption[edit]

Hello, R2dra. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sincryption, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm Arjayay. I noticed that you recently removed content from Battle of Dewair (1606) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - Arjayay (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've got 2 sources that claim Amar Singh won the battle of dewair 1

2 R2dra (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of Mandalgarh and Banas. 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.Imperial ^[AFCND] 11:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. asilvering (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Minorax. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Dhrangadhra State—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, R2dra. Thank you for your work on Ajja Jhala. Maliner, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please add better sources. Multiple sources are there to establish the notability of the subject. You can take advantage of Google Books. Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Maliner}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Maliner (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, R2dra, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Maliner (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Battle of Thane and Bharuch. 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. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Battle of Thane and Bharuch[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.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Battle of Thane and Bharuch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thane. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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. asilvering (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing info[edit]

Hello, I'm ImperialAficionado. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mughal conquest of Jessore have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Imperial ^[AFCND] 04:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Haldighati[edit]

I've reverted your edits on Battle of Haldighati here. Your edits clearly display a lack of understanding of WP:HISTRS. Since you have already reverted @Kansas Bear, you now must engage in discussion before making any further changes in this matter. >>> Extorc.talk 14:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? LoL even inscriptions say Mughals lost on the last day still you can't handle the truth R2dra (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of Purandar. 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. You changed cited content about the victor of the battle >>> Extorc.talk 14:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Ajja Jhala, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Samf4u (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that itself is written in mewar's books from where I got that picture R2dra (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jhala Dynasty, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ajja Jhala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idar. 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) 06:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello R2dra! Your additions to Jhala Dynasty have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

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, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wait for some time I'm working on it and adding sources R2dra (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, copyrighted text must be removed immediately, or Wikipedia is legally liable for the copyright breach. Wikishovel (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm removing it R2dra (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not restore deleted articles[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of Dewair (1582). 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. Imperial ^[AFCND] 11:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it promote vandalism? It's a historical battle fought between Mughals and rajputs R2dra (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i request you to undo your edit R2dra (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dewair (1582) the page was deleted in accordance with the discussion. Moreover, there is no mention of "Battle of Dewair" of 1582 in any of the WP:RS. And restoring that again and again won't change the outcome of the discussion. So please stay away from this and I would appreciate if you contribute constructively to the Indian history. Thank you. Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol😂 you're deleting articles for no reason, the redirect doesn't fuly define the incident R2dra (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Mztourist @FDW777 and @Cinderella157, anyone please explain. I am pretty sure that this user won't listen to my words as I came across his edits several times. Now they thinks I deleted that article! Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted article has been restored for four times! Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not deleting articles for no reason, we are deleting them because the commnunity decided, after lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dewair (1582), we should not have an article on the subject.

Since then there have been numerous attempts to resurrect the article, some of them are as follows.

At Battle of Dewair (1582) there was this version by an IP in 2021, where the only reference cited doesn't obviously mention the battle at all(and yes, I did use the search box at the bottom of the page using likely terms and found nothing).
Again at Battle of Dewair (1582) we have this January 6 2024 attempt. After stripping away the infobox and filler we're left with two sentences about the battle, and I checked the references to see if there was anything else that could be added. Answer? Nothing
Again at Battle of Dewair (1582) we have this January 21 2024 attempt, which is barely worth discussing. However I will point out the claim that Noted historians James Tord and Omendra Ratnu, in their respective works, "Book Title by James Tord" and "Maharana: The Thousand Years of Dharma" provide comprehensive insights into the Battle of Dewair, documenting the events and their historical significance is certainly false as far as James Tord [sic] is concerned, as detailed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dewair (1582) Tod provides nothing we can use to write an article
For the sake of completeness I will mention the February 19, 2024 attempt by R2dra, which cites the recently self-published "THE LION OF HIND: Power, Passion, Patriotism. One Man's Guts Sends Shivers Down the Mughal Spine!". Are you seriously citing a self-published fictional book for children? I further note that footnotes #1-6 are all citing a different self-published book, which provides zero new information (since as usual, after stripping away the filler we're left with a one sentence telling of the supposed events of the battle)
Now onto attempts in draft space, starting with Draft:Battel of Dewair 1582 in January 2024. Worthless.
Or how about Draft:Battle of Dewair 1582? As that's currently blank, see this version that's been declined twice. It's difficult to tell what's referenced and what's not due to the lack of working footnotes (and the lack of working links in the footnotes), but even a brief check of Rana Pratap Singh – Indian ruler". Encyclopedia Britannica and Maharana Pratap’s final victory was in Akbar’s reaction to news of his death, says Dr Rima Hooja shows that, like usual, we have people reference bombing, in particular the citations which don't even namecheck the subject at all, but are present solely to verify a fact that's entirely tangential to the topic's own notability or lack thereof entry since neither of those mention the battle at all.
Or last but not least, how about Draft:Battle of Dewair? As that's currently at Draft:Maharana Pratap’s reconquest of Mewar (where, like usual, it's been declined as a submission), see this version for when it was focussed on the battle itself. It even contains a direct admission that Since very patchy details of this war are available to us. I note the "References" section twice contains Tod's work ("Annals of Mewar by CH Payne" is an edited extract of Tod's work) despite it being dismissed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dewair (1582) as saying nothing worthwhile.

What do all these have in common? Strip away the infobox, filler, padding, fluff and unreferenced information every single time all you end up is less than two sentences. The source material simply does not exist. Since we are now over 400 years after the event, it appears unlikely that the source material will ever exist until a time machine is invented. Nobody describes in any detail what happened, and without that information we cannot write an article about the subject. Think differently? That's your perogative. Prove me wrong. Contact all the people who've tried to create an article or write a draft. Pool your resources. Find the source material that covers the battle in even a small degree of detail. Write me a draft article that's significantly more than the usual two sentence non-account of the battle. I'd love there to be an article about this battle, but without source material that can never happen. FDW777 (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FDW777, guess what happened now? This user recreated that again. I have made a report as they are continuing this behaviour, even after getting this much warnings. Imperial ^[AFCND] 11:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page where it redirects isn't brief R2dra (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, if an article is deleted after an AFD, we can't recreate this again. FDW777 has spent enough of his time explaining this on your own talk page, and still doing the same? Imperial ^[AFCND] 11:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing (poorly sourced material, etc) on battle articles[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any valid source that Marathas won the battle, if yes provide the source R2dra (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Siege of Chittorgarh (1567–1568), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Battle of Haldighati shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 16:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 22:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Maharana Pratap has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Also see the possible violation Begocci (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works by consensus[edit]

In a project where anyone can contribute it is inevitable that there will very often be disagreements about what articles should exist and about what content should be in those which do exist. We do not resolve such disagreements by each editor repeatedly doing what they think is right, ignoring what everybody else thinks. If we did use that method, it would mean that the most stubborn editor would always eventually get their way, which would not be a good way of settling disagreements. Instead, we discuss things, with a view to trying to reach agreement. Sometimes there is broad agreement among editors, but with one or two dissenters. In that situation it is necessary for the dissenters to accept the consensus among others, no matter how strongly they believe that they are right and others are wrong. I have had to accept decisions which I believe are wrong many times, and so has pretty well everyone else with a substantial amount of experience of editing Wikipedia. You are already blocked for edit-warring, but I have also found another, even worse, example of your refusing to accept consensus. You have repeatedly re-created an article which had been deleted as the outcome of consensus at a deletion discussion. You have re-created it both under its original title and under a slight variation of its title. I don't know why you did the latter, but it is even more unacceptable than restoring the article under its original title, because it runs the risk of preventing other editors from seeing what you have done.
If you continue to try to impose your own view, attempting to unilaterally overturn consensus in discussions, you are likely to be blocked from editing for much longer than the current block time, quite possibly indefinitely. JBW (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

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. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. FDW777 (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement[edit]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. FDW777 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

whats it R2dra (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 27[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ajja Jhala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rana.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Parihar.
You have just finished a block, please be more careful in your editing - Arjayay (talk) Arjayay (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia and have engaged in persistent WP:edit warring and non-neutral editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock my account, I've not violated any rule and wouldn't do it in future too. R2dra (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc please unblock me R2dra (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc stop stop being a jerk and unblock me R2dra (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are instructions in the block message about how you can appeal. Read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, To request unblocking, add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@R2dra, you got zero reasons to call @Callanecc a "jerk". I made the report about you at AIV, not him. And that even won't make a reason to call anyone a "jerk". This behaviour won't allow you to make any constructive editing, as you got multiple warnings from different users regarding the disruptive editing/edit warring on History related topics on India-Pakistan contentious topic areas. So, develop a civil behaviour first. This is my suggestion, you can apply or simply ignore this. Imperial ^[AFCND] 19:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Personal attacks and uncivility are not acceptable on Wikipedia as a collaborative editing project. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R2dra. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

– bradv 16:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]