User talk:John811jd

Welcome!
Hello, John811jd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Noyster  (talk),  16:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Thanks a lot Sir, for motivation and appreciation..--Mahensingha 10:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop doing disputed edits on controversial article
Please note that Rajput is controversial article and also member of Category:Wikipedia controversial topics. so please stop doing disputed edits on this article which would always remain a cause of edit war. we have no other choice than to rely on learned Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. and they of course can not be surpassed by view of some authors. Had those authors been reliable enough, they would have taken them into account. but they did not. so please stop messing. kind regards. Rajput334 (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please avoid using sources published in the British Raj era for caste articles. They are notoriously unreliable. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sir, a half-truth article is a deceptive article. Why not presenters of the statement so removed present a fact in its favor .The whole article puts history in totally wrong and unverifiable way. Please tell user Rajput334 to provide a secondary source rather than using a tertiary source britannica for whole article. He is trying to surpass other contributors. Moreover, as per Policies of Wikipedia, it should be verifiable, which it is not. Truth should be our priorityJohn811jd (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

you may remove what is not verifiable but can't overrule Britannica. what is necessary for article is already provided. It is related to Rajputs overall. There are several authors saying that rajput dynasties arose in 7th century but because of the article being controversial, Britannica Rajput article is cited (which provided for 9th century). write all your claims here and don't mess with article, i will provide you contradictory authorities one by one for all your claims. Rajput334 (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Your recent editing history at Rajput shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''Take it to the article talk page, please. I've said the same to the other disputant.'' Sitush (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Sir, iam not reverting other contributors edits,infact user Rajput334 is reverting other editors sourced content repeatedly. John811jd (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You have just reverted again, despite my note on the article talk page and the warning above. Do it once more and I will seek sanctions against you - please note the contents of the information box below. The correct procedure for situations such as this is often considered to be the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Someone was bold in adding that information, someone else reverted it and you really, really should now discuss. If you get consensus for those changes then they will be made. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please also note that your warning here is incorrect. What that user did was not vandalism. Please read WP:NOTVAND. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Rajput talk
There isn't much chance that anyone can work their way through your recent 16,000-character post at Talk:Rajput. Can I collapse it, please, and then we'll look at the issues one point at a time. You've basically inserted formatted text from an old version of the article and it has made a complete mess of the talk page (look, for example, at how it has messed up the "table of contents" at the top of that page).

I'm happy to discuss the issues that you raise once you confirm that you have read and understood WP:RS and WP:COPYRIGHT. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not acceptable. If you cannot understand why your edits are so problematic, I'll have to request that you are blocked from contributing entirely. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, you have been inserting masses of copyright violation into the article and at least some into the talk page (I can't even read a lot of what you say on the talk page because it is such a mess). I've asked you before to confirm that you have read and understood WP:COPYRIGHT but you are not responding. It isn't good enough, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The exact thread is here. - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are blocked pursuant to General sanctions/South Asian social groups. Please see the discussion at ANI for more detail. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You will not be able to comment in that ANI discussion because of this block. However, if you do wish to say something there I suggest that you write it here and someone will copy it over for you. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

== Seasonal Greets! ==