User talk:VediKboy

July 2012[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 12:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Shiv Sena, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digvijaya Singh[edit]

One reference is not enough and it's not important enough to be in the lead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

we would need independent sources for this statement, not his own blog. Even then, it certainly has no place in the lead and almost certainly no place in the article. Name-calling is common but unless you can show that these particular examples are widely recognised, they are not notable. - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at Digvijaya Singh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of political catchphrases may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*Abki Baar,Modi Sarkar - The BJP 2014 <ref>[http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-05-15/news/49873496_1_narendra-modi-ki-baar-modi-
att det är häftigt att betala skatt. För mig är skatt det finaste uttrycket för vad politik är." (If you're a Social Democrat, you think it's cool to pay taxes. To me, taxes are the most beautiful

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting instead of moving[edit]

If you need to move content from one section to another do so yourself, or make an edit request if you do not know how to.. but do not delete content or you will be blocked from editing. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not call it a conspiracy theory.. first one doesn't talk about theories at all, the second one only says media is tapped into conspiracy theories. This one is however an affidavit (the second source also seems to hold a POV as it calls the person 'the new best friend of Pakistan'... a POV source maybe fine, but we've to use it here neutrally). Use the article's talkpage before making any further reverts. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss your edits instead of forcing in your reverts --lTopGunl (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. lTopGunl (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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; 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. lTopGunl (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. lTopGunl (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Faizan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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! Fai zan 09:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBIPA[edit]

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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:VediKboy, I was just about to give you the same notice myself, as an uninvolved admin. Since 1 December you have edited Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India 10 times times but you've never posted on the article's talk page. It may be time for you to try to persuade the other editors instead of just reverting to your preferred version. It's my hope that the editors who've been reverting you will also join in a discusion at Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGun (talk • contribs) 07:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India [edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:VediKboy reported by User:TopGun (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Arundhati Roy, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I would highly recommend you to read wikipedia policies. Primarily WP:BLP, which clearly states that if you intend to insert contentious and questionable material (that too in the WP:LEAD), they are free to be challenged and the onus is on you to build a consensus for it. Secondly, I would advice you to read WP:PA which you violated by first calling me "ideologically motivated" and then doubled down by calling me "communist".

I have removed your edit for the last time, if you refrain from continuing to indulge in the behavior you have till now then we might have a discussion on the subject. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite partial block from Arundhati Roy[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for biographies of living persons violations and disruptive editing.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 18:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning about personal attacks[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. El_C 20:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:VediKboy reported by User:MiasmaEternal (Result: ). Thank you. MiasmaEternal^TALK 00:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

Doug Weller talk 09:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

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.

Doug Weller talk 09:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Pappu. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

25th May 2021[edit]

Hello TheWikiholic What other reliable source do you want besides a reputable magazine like Indiatoday.com? It is well known that such insult was used for the aforementioned Indian politician. It's not new or original research. It was just not mentioned on wikipedia.