User talk:110.226.28.89

Hello, I'm Ohnoitsjamie. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to 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! OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
Hello, I'm Zippybonzo. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Religion in the Punjab have been undone because they 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.  Discussing on the article talk page is an alternative to deleting a whole section without community consensus  Zippy (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for this revert of a bad edit on my part. I must have somehow thought that I was reverting a bad addition to some other article when I did this -- I can't think what the specifics might be. My bad -- thanks for fixing it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

3RR
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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sapedder (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sapedder (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Sapedder was 110% making bad faith edits and changing the article to his whims on that article. Thank you for countering him. He also turned the Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale into a one sided, editoral full of soapboxing and thinly vieled conspiracy theories. If you have a moment, please take a look at the JSB article and add improvements Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)