User talk:Birbal Kumawat

Dear Sir, I have been blocked for editing an article "Transotion (Linguistics)". In fact this article is not as per the standard of Wikipedia. It gives an ambiguous theory of grammar.It needs to be deleted. I hope you to take my sincere appeal seriously. Please unblock me. I am a laborious scholar of Wikipedia.


 * While we appreciate that you want to improve the encyclopedia, please understand that Wikipedia is not meant to be a publisher of original research. Instead, it is meant to summarize the points of reliable sources on a given subject. Therefore, whenever you add content to a page, you must cite a reliable source to back up your claims. If you need help with this, I'd suggest reading some of these policy pages:


 * Wikipedia's policy on original research
 * Wikipedia's policy on verifiability
 * Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view
 * Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources
 * Beginner's guide to adding references


 * Ionmars10 (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it'd be best to take your concerns to the article's talk page, Birbal Kumawat. There, you can explain your issues with the content and seek consensus for your edits, which have been disputed.  If what you want is to delete the article, English Wikipedia has an official deletion policy.  Editors are expected to follow that and the deletion process, not replace sourced content with their own analysis of the article's content.  If you don't understand our deletion processes (they are a bit overcomplicated), please ask for help at the tea house or help desk once your block expires.  Editors will assist you through the process.  But please do not insert your own opinions into articles, remove sourced content without a valid reason, or make any more legal threats. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

September 2017
Hello, I'm Flyer22 Reborn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Determiner phrase have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, 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. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Noun phrase has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 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: Noun phrase was changed by Birbal Kumawat (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.894013 on 2017-10-15T02:47:03+00:00.

October 2019
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ionmars10 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. M. I. Wright (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Your recent edits to Talk:Transitions (linguistics) could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Also, improve your own English before claiming to be an expert in grammar. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Transitions (linguistics), you may be blocked from editing. Ionmars10 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Transition (linguistics). → Emadix  ©  talk  01:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 01:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Your edits
Birbal Kumawat, your edits show that you are enthusiastic about linguistics, which is a very wonderful thing in my opinion. I have also noticed that you are an admirer of the late, great Geoffrey Leech. I had the privilege and honour of meeting Professor Leech a few times; it was a great loss to the field when he passed away, but his legacy lives on in his publications – I particularly recommend his Principles of Pragmatics from 1984. He wrote books on grammar, but also on other aspects of linguistic research, and was in fact remarkable for being an acknowledged expert in several different linguistic fields.

Why am I saying all this? Because Geoffrey Leech was not only characterised by being a brilliant linguist, but also by his polite, almost humble attitude; he would listen with interest and an open mind to what other scholars (including lowly PhD students like myself at the time) had to say and take their arguments into consideration. That is not to say that he could not be sharp in his retorts, but never, ever rude – as far as my limited experience tells me, and also according to people I know who knew him well. After all, he was the person who formulated the Politeness maxims. So what I wish to say is that it will be better for you to try to emulate that when you edit Wikipedia, and rather than assume that other people are wrong, there may be differences of outlook (such as the fact that transition phrases are not a feature of grammar), or even that other people may know things that you are not yet aware of. And if other editors are in fact incorrect, you will need to provide your reasons and sources for that calmly, politely, and without using derogatory terms like "foolish" or "rubbish". Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)