August 2013

edit

  Hello, I'm Vigyani. I wanted to let you know that your recent contributions have been reverted or removed because they could be seen to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Pappu. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 03:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pappu, you may be blocked from editing. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

why?

edit

why r u inserting defamatory content ? --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi , because in India Mr Rahul Gandhi is known as pappu. haven't you heard about "WhereIsPappu" which was the trending hash tag abt Mr. Rahul Gandhi. i am not at all posting defamatory content, nor i am abusing anybody. its a serious post. in fact in the wiki article abt pappu you will find so many (in fact most) occurrence of Mr Gandhi.

I very well know that he is nicknamed pappu on internet/twitter by his critics. But that does not make it his name. That particular section is about people, who official name contains the word Pappu. not about people who are referred so by their critics. Lots of other politicians are referred by various words, but that doesn't make them their name. In the first para of the article, mentioning that #pappu was trending etc is okay, because that is a fact. But his name is not pappy. There is difference between two things.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 17:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Rahul Gandhi. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN talk to me 19:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Pappu shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN talk to me 19:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

no chance of reverting .. as the information that i have put is absolutely correct. You can yourself verify that it by goggling it.

Discuss it on the article's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 19:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

  This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pappu, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 11:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

edit

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Priya_jain1002001 reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN talk to me 13:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

edit
 

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Priya jain1002001, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Blocked for sockpuppetry

edit

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

edit
 

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Priya jain1002001, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 12:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply