User talk:Unvwiki

January 2017
Hello, I'm Jusdafax. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Ho people— 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. Jus da  fax   11:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Munda people


A tag has been placed on List of Munda people, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. &mdash;  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 08:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced additions/changes
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ho people, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * A Google search is NOT a reference - please read, and follow Help:Referencing for beginners - Arjayay (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ho people. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Arjayay (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

If you try to erase information which is related to tradition and culture of tribe then you may face legal criminal proceedings.... Be sure

A closely related concept to spoliation of evidence is tampering with evidence, which is usually the criminal-law version of the same concept, namely when a person alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys evidence in an investigation by law enforcement or by a regulatory authority. An act of ruining or destroying evidence may sometimes be considered both spoliation of evidence and tampering with evidence. For example, when police destroy their own dashboard-camera footage or seize and destroy a citizen's video footage of an incident, it may constitute spoliation of evidence in a criminal case against the defendant if the footage tended to create reasonable doubt for the defendant, and also constitute tampering if the video were evidence of police misconduct in a criminal or regulatory investigation of the police's actions. The goal of spoliating or tampering with evidence is usually to cover up evidence that would be disfavorable to the doer in some way.

Spoliation of evidence is often important in e-discovery matters, as oftentimes records in electronic form such as SMS messages may be difficult to retrieve, preserve, or monitor.

Companies and organizations often attempt to avoid spoliation of evidence (or being accused or held liable therewith) by using a legal hold. Often, the legal departments of the company or organization will issue a prescribed order to the relevant employees to retain and preserve their discoverable materials (such as e-mails and documents).


 * User:Unvwiki I suggest you read No legal threats, delete your post above, and apologise, as otherwise you are likely to be blocked - Arjayay (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Please Go through article 25 and article 29 and article 30 of Indian constitution and supreme court judgement about tribe ,dillip Singh committee and Ghurey committee of tribe and go to cyber crime prevention act of 2012 and also go by Wikipedia cyber crime law...otherwise you may face criminal proceedings as per cyber crime law-2012..

Unsourced additions/changes - again
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ho people. You have managed to correctly format a reference, but the reference you have added does not cover the information you have added, so the information is still unsourced. The words Bela, puja, uthani, Kolam, Baba and bandi do not appear in that source at all, let alone support what you added - Arjayay (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)