User talk:Paramsinghantaal

March 2013
Hello, I'm TempName1. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Banda Singh Bahadur, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, TempName1 (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Paramsinghantaal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type   on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! TempName1 (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
TempName1 (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

permission for editing a protected page
respected administration, i want permission to edit the article about BANDA SINGH BAHADUR.it is semi protected by a user.the user had added some wrong information about Banda Singh Bahadur.i can prove it.please unprotect this page so that i can add right information. thanking you.

Your recent edits
Hello.

When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Banda Singh Bahadur‎. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack
On my talk page you said about, ".i think he had some personal matter with sikh history.he is manipulating things". Do not make such personal statements. Accusing someone of having "some personal matter" to the point where they are "manipulating things" denies one of our core guidelines, Assume good faith. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Threatening to cause disruption if you do not get your own way is not the way to behave here. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good block. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very much so. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * +1, was just about to ping someone for this. Thanks. gwickwire  talk editing 16:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

ASK YOUR BIG SIKH HISTORY SCHOLER 'SITUSH'
he is making brahman the hunters.huh.....when did they used to hunting.brahmans,a priest class.In old india they could not even imagine about hunting.but according to "dr." sitush brahmans used to hunt.stop this bullshit. just waiting of unlocking this page.


 * I am unsure whether by "unlocking this page" you are referring to your talk page (in which case, you will have to file an appeal against the block, as described in the block notice above) or the article. If you start to edit the article while you are logged out then a couple of things will happen: firstly, your IP address(es) will almost certainly be blocked; secondly, the article will be protected again. In other words, you'll be wasting your time. I have no idea what is or is not the correct name/caste etc for the subject in question & that is why I tried to openb a discussion on the article talk page. You were edit warring and threatening further disruption. It seems that you are not learning much, which is unfortunate because an indefinite block is not a permanent block - if you went about things in the right way then you could once again contribute as a member of the Wikipedia community. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not an appropriate use of you talk page. Further pursuit of this dispute and attacks against other editors will lead to revocation of your talk page access. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 18:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You knew it very well that i did nothing wrong with the article.I just asked you to go with the fact approved by majority of historians.But it was surprising for me that you were supporting the fact which is very weak in its approach.And also you are mentioning it in very first introduction of BANDA SINGH BAHADUR.If you are not agree with the majority of historians (for which you have no reason and right) at least do not support the fact which is approved by a few.(they are not even 'few' but are only two historian). You know that many people read wikipedia daily for diffrent kind of informations. And most of them only read the main introduction. they do not bother to read the whole article.And also they have not so much time.So for such kind of people you must not mention the facts which are not right.Here two things you can do---go with the opinion of majority about that particular fact or stay neutral.but you are doing a totally different thing by supporting a weak factor in comparison ,here.so where i am wrong and you are right.--Paramsinghantaal (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont care if you block me permanent.I will use another connection for re-editing.how many ip adresses you will block and for how much time.Editing can be done by a mobile device too.But i will not allow you to put wrong information about Sikh history there. At first i had decided to disrupt the other material but i did not do the same for the sake of other people.You should think yourself that being a editor are you doing your job honestly.Do not let disgrace this project.--Paramsinghantaal (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Paramsinghantaal, we've had threats like this from people trying to force their views on Wikipedia for years, so I don't know why you think you will succeed where so many others have failed. All that will happen is the relevant articles will be protected to prevent *all* IPs from editing them. The *only* way you can possibly get your version of an article accepted is by consensus, supported by reliable sources - if you cannot achieve consensus, you will not succeed in making the changes you want. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Talk page access revoked. If you wish to request an unblock please use the Unblock Ticket Request System or contact the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Continuing this behaviour at articles as an IP editor will simply lead to the articles being protected. I suggest you think of ways to work collaboratively here. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 13:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)