User talk:Vidhansabhaaurai

Welcome!
Hello, Vidhansabhaaurai, 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 recent edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other 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. Additionally, 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
 * Contributing to 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 need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Sitush (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
Your recent edits to Dinanath Bhaskar 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. —C.Fred (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm C.Fred. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Dinanath Bhaskar without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. ''Most critically, you deleted the references to reliable sources that support the material in the article. If, as your edit summary suggests, you are concerned with maintaining the proper presentation of information in the article, you understand why it's critical to have sources cited.'' —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Please review the guidelines for editing about your employer or client
Hello, Vidhansabhaaurai. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Dinanath Bhaskar, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Dinanath Bhaskar. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Vidhansabhaaurai, and the template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. ''You have implied now that you work both for Bhaskar and the Indian government. You are now under an obligation to clearly disclose at whose request, and on whose payroll, you are attempting to edit Bhaskar's article. It is also strongly suggested that you should not edit Dinanath Bhaskar directly; instead, request edits at Talk:Dinanath Bhaskar. This is the way all editors with conflicts of interest should proceed.'' —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Allow me to be blunt
Not only are you violating the conflict of interest guidelines, but you have now violated the three revert rule.

Any editor who reverts a page more than three times in 24 hours is subject to being blocked for disruption. Repeated reverts are disruptive.

There are a few ways we can proceed. The best is that you withdraw your last edit, declare your conflict of interest and who is paying you, and then request any further edits at Talk:Dinanath Bhaskar.

The alternatives all involve you losing editing privileges temporarily or involve all new and unregistered editors from being unable to edit Dinanath Bhaskar.

Please advise how you wish to proceed. I'd prefer to take the best route that I mentioned above. —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The Content wont be Changed
What so ever you want to do you can do but the content will be the same. Thank you

January 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vtkempi, you may be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You also may get blocked so you stop changing the content.And if you want to change ask me first. C Fred — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidhansabhaaurai (talk • contribs)


 * Since you initiated the change, the burden is on you. You also still are obligated to follow the paid user disclosures. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

'Just tell me why you want to change the content let it be as it is. Common dont behave like a 12 year old child C fred'


 * Careful with the personal attacks. Also, why do I want the content to stay the status quo? Because you have not established consensus to change it. Because you have a conflict of interest. Because you're removing reliable sources. Basically, because every Wikipedia guideline I've come across says to leave the article as is. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, colluding with other accounts isn't helping your cause. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Well this page is created by me all the image have my copyright better let me handle it if you want proof check the link below and google the name of Dinanath Bhaskar https://www.facebook.com/officialdnbhaskar?ref=br_rs

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Dinanath Bhaskar. Sitush (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Dinanath Bhaskar 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 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 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. Sitush (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for personally attacking other editors. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. regentspark (comment) 20:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)