This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Redpapers, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks.nsf/redpapers. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Redpapers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redpapers
If you feel this concept is notable, then create an entirely new article on the subject. As you were told before, "[y]ou may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words." --Orange Mike | Talk15:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Redpapers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TheHelpfulOne(Review)20:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marathi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hello, Anubhavklal. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Anubhavklal. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Anubhavklal. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Anubhavklal. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Pursuant to your's continuing to push a pro-Hindutva/BJP spin in our articles, the most probable consequence will be a revocation of editing privileges. You have been over here, for long enough to know about WP:NPOV and WP:V. Best, ∯WBGconverse19:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at New Yamuna Bridge. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi! You're welcome to propose the renaming of Mughalsarai and all the other articles. But until such a proposal passes, please don't go around changing how these places are referred to within other articles. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk)15:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
October 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Faizabad. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please stop changing the names of places in articles to different spellings to those used as our article titles, as you did at Faizabad. We use the WP:COMMONNAME in English for our articles, not the "official" names, so changing the spelling breaks wikilinks to those articles and is confusing to our readers. You have been told about this before, but you continue making the same disruptive edits.16:56, 5 November 2021,17:15, 5 November 2021-- Toddy1(talk)19:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made to the articles on Ayodhya, Faizabad, Allahabad district and various Indian railway stations, where you have been repeatedly changing the common names for districts in India that Wikipedia uses as article names to official names, although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Ayodhya in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.-- Toddy1(talk)14:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ayodhya. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Ayodhya, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Toddy1(talk)14:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you recently made an edit to the article on Mughalsarai Junction railway station that changed the lead in an unhelpful way. As you know (because you have been told it before), on English-language Wikipedia, we use the commonly used English-language names for places (see WP:COMMONNAME). These are not necessarily the same as so-called "official names" imposed by politicians. You changed the first paragraph of the article on Mughalsarai Junction railway station so that it did not have the article name leading. This confuses our readers. Please do not do it again.-- Toddy1(talk)10:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to leave edit summaries
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! -- Toddy1(talk)10:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Anubhavklal! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Allahabad Airport that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. -- Toddy1(talk)17:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Doug Wellertalk10:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear how my edit is disrupive. On what basis is the magazine called a propaganda outlet? Is there any rule in Wikipedia which prohibits removing such POV Anubhavklal (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you reverted my correction of propaganda outlet also. Was it because of your personal bias? My intent was only to make Wikipedia better. Anubhavklal (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
No survey or media reports have indicated yet, if it is going to be a significant election issue.
Communal Issues paragraph 1
According to political analysts, with Karnataka polls nearing, the BJP is raking up more and more social issues to keep its voters informed. This can been seen by choosing the communal tensions started by muslim radicals on hijab and interpreting it as burqa which met with such equal demands [1] from right-wing Hindutva groups on hijab, halal, azan, boycott of Muslim-run shops.[2][3]
According to political analysts[who?], with Karnataka polls nearing, the political parties are raking up more and more social issues to keep its voters informed. This can been seen by choosing the communal tensions started by muslim radicals on hijab and interpreting it as burqa which met with such equal demands [4] from right-wing Hindutva groups on hijab, halal, azan, boycott of Muslim-run shops.[5][6]
Communal Issues paragraph 3
while bjp leaders follow its agenda based on modi magic [7]. capable leader ,Annamalai given charge of BJP’s Karnataka Assembly poll campaignhttps://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/modi-magic-works-everywhere-says-union-home-minister-amit-shah-in-karnataka-assembly-election-campaign/article66575831.ece
While bjp leaders follow its agenda based on Modi magic [8]. the leader, Annamalai given charge of BJP’s Karnataka Assembly poll campaign[9]
Your Belagavi border dispute paragraph 2 looks like personal commentary. The paragraph needed a citation to a reliable source. If the source was an opinion column, then the text should have been worded as something like "Bridget Kendall said that...".
Your edit to Communal Issues paragraph 1 changed text that was supported by citations. You should have looked at what the citations said, before you started changing it to reflect your understanding of the situation. The article from The Week that was cited had a quotation from Siddaramaiah: As the Karnataka polls are nearing the BJP raking up more and more communal issues to divide people and polarise the votes.... What you did was not OK, even though you meant well. It would have been an improvement to the paragraph to have made it clearer who made the statement and which source supported the statement. It was not right to change the meaning of the statement.-- Toddy1(talk)09:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Hi Anubhavklal! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Allahabad High Court that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. -- Toddy1(talk)08:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I will follow the process. I don't want a good stuff like Wikipedia to be hijacked by some vandals like you. You can choose to cooperate and make Wikipedia as an unbiased source, or keep propogating your agenda. That is totally your choice.
Refrain from making WP:UNCIVIL comments, when you are the one moving articles unilaterally and contravening WP:COMMONNAME. You got blocked for disruptive behavior recently, you need to be careful. Note that Germany is not official name of the country, but it is the common name used in English Wikipedia. You need to respect the guidelines and the policies of Wikipedia. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I might not have followed the correct process for page move due to lack of awareness of the right process, but can you explain which part of my comment was not civil?
I am willing to apologise if it is proven that I have said anything wrong in my comment. Else I leave it for the other readers to decide. Anubhavklal (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You asked how to go about getting pages moved when other people are likely to disagree with you. So I told you (see post of 09:22, 23 June 2023 above). Please could you use that process instead of continuing to make controversial moves without a proper discussion. That a like-minded editor made a post on the talk page a few months ago is not sufficient justification.-- Toddy1(talk)12:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you moving articles without consensus? You have to wait for the RfC here to be over. All the relevant articles on the section, division, etc will depend on it. If you want you can start requests at individual pages, you can do that like how you did it in this talk page. Whatever you are doing is disruptive, for which you got blocked remember. Let the RfC at the main article 'Mughalsarai Junction' complete. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mughalsarai. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
This is exactly what I requested you to do. Not to remove any information unilaterally which may be disputed by others. You can check my earlier comments. All I have been asking for was a consensus Anubhavklal (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mughalsarai. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
In the article on the Mughalsarai–Kanpur section there is a "citation needed" tag next to the claim that the official name is "Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction–Kanpur section". You tried to fix this, but made a number of errors:
The citation you added was an official document that used the name: "Kanpur - Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay (CNB-DDU) section", i.e. a different name.
You completed the citation template incorrectly. The field marked "title" is meant to have the document title, not a repeat of the URL. There are other fields such as date, and the name of the organisation that issued the document that needed to be added.
If you had provided a correct citation, then you should have removed the "citation needed" tag after you added the citation.
If you think that the official name for the section is the one used in that document, then what you should do is to change wording of the official name in the article (including the infobox) to the name used in that document and have another go at completing the citation template.-- Toddy1(talk)05:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment that you wanted guidance regarding policies, and I can see from your editing that it is very much the case. If you have any doubts regarding any policy, you can ping me and get it clarified.
Edit warring over Allahabad Chheoki Junction railway station
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Allahabad Chheoki Junction railway station. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Perhaps you should looks at links posted by Captain Jack Sparrow above. Backlinking multiple times is discouraged, you should respect Wikipedia policies. Secondly, you shouldn't change the longstanding sentences on cities just because you hate the term "Mughalsarai", and seem to go at any lengths to circumvent it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for which I (or any sensible person) do not support the name, which @Fylindfotberserk call hate, is that it is an old and less common name now. We must keep the information current to be useful for readers. Anything which makes Wikipedia obsolete must be "hated", if that is the phrase you prefer. Anubhavklal (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We try to work collaboratively, and one of the benefits of move discussions that sometimes a better name arises in the discussion. -- Toddy1(talk)15:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a good job but acting unilaterally, and not awaiting consensus -- is not how we do stuff here. Please confirm you will not again move articles until there is consensus for the move (assessed not by you, but by an uninvolved editor, or by the editorial group discussing the move in unison). Until then, you will remain blocked, or for a month, whichever comes sooner. Thanks, Lourdes20:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that though he/she has had an account since April 2007, he/she has not used it much - hence only 873 edits, or which 460 were in 2023. He/she is not good at presenting and assessing evidence. For example in Talk:Faizabad Junction railway station#Requested move 1 July 2023, Anubhavklal presented five links as evidence, but only one of them was relevant.
@Lourdes: Now this user is carrying out a completely WP:LAME edit war on Hindu Mahasabha. He is adding unsourced statement "which it refers as Muslim appeasement politics," while also adding tag "{{Citation needed|date=September 2023}}" for his own addition! Aside that in the same edit, he is also disputing the undisputed fact that Nahturam Godse was a member of this group. Either a longer block or topic ban should be issued now. Thanks Editorkamran (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not try to rewrite the past as the present
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prayagraj division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kanpur district. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello, Anubhavklal. I am writing to let you know that your closure of Talk:Ahmedabad–Allahabad Weekly Superfast Express#Requested move 22 August 2023 was contrary to Wikipedia policy, and to request that you agree to reopening the discussion. Closing a requested-move discussion is an administrative action subject to WP:INVOLVED – even if the closer is not an administrator. That policy page states, among other things, that "editors closing such discussions should not have been involved in the discussion itself or related disputes."
This is further explained at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. It is not appropriate for the person who proposes a requested move to close the discussion – unless it is to withdraw the request. Additionally, requested-move discussions should normally remain open for a minimum of 7 days.
The administrator Lourdes also urged you above to wait for "consensus for the move (assessed not by you, but by an uninvolved editor, or by the editorial group discussing the move in unison)."
Please reopen the discussion by reverting to this edit: Special:Permalink/1171700364. If you would prefer, I can reopen it for you (if you agree below). If you do not agree to reopen or to allow me reopen, I will ask an administrator to reopen your request. (Once reopened, the article will be returned to the previous title until the discussion is closed by an uninvolved editor.)
When you open a request-move discussion, Wikipedia policy says you should not also close the discussion. Please agree to let me revert the closure or I will ask an administrator to do so. SilverLocust💬06:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I now see from this incident report at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that this was at least your fourth time closing your own requested moves, which was part of what led to your most recent block. If you do not agree voluntarily to having your closure and move undone, then I think it will be necessary to request that you be banned from moves and from move discussions, as DaxServer suggested above. But I will first wait 24 hours for any response you have. SilverLocust💬09:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't have a view on what the page's title should be, if that is what you mean by "the dispute". All that I am saying is that the move needs to wait until the requested move is closed by someone who is not involved. I will go ahead with reopening the discussion and restoring the original title while it remains open. Thanks. SilverLocust💬10:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revert (1) the closure you made at Talk:Ahmedabad–Allahabad Weekly Superfast Express#Requested move 22 August 2023, (2) revert the move of the article, and (3) revert the edits you made to the article after you moved it. Use edit summaries that explain what you are doing, and that you made a mistake when closing the move request. The advantage of this is that it gets you out of your current trouble.
If you propose a move discussion or express an opinion in a move discussion you are involved. That means that it is forbidden for you to close the move discussion. You can get blocked for what you are doing.
If the closer of a move discussion makes the wrong decision (in your opinion), there is a process for dealing with this. (1) You should discuss it with the person who closed it on their talk page, or on the article talk page. [I take it you know about pinging users to get their attention?] (2) If you are still not satisfied, Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines. Do not start another move discussion on the same page requesting the same move a few weeks later, which is what you have been doing since your most recent block expired on 20 August 2023.
I hope you do not mind but I have corrected the URL you gave as evidence in support of the move at Talk:Hubli railway division. The URL you gave did not work because it was missing part of the information. By a bit trial-and-error I managed to find what I think is the URL you meant and have corrected the URL you meant. -- Toddy1(talk)17:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category renaming
@Anubhavklal: There are categories associated with various pages. There is a process for renaming categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Since you seem to believe that new names for Indian cities, divisions, districts, railway divisions, etc. should be used, please could you take a look at categories associated with Allahabad. Do you think these ought to be renamed from "Allahabad..." to "Prayagraj..."? Another editor has tried to solve this without using the correct process; he/she has tried creating new categories and populating them by editing articles (for example look at the recent edit history for Prayagraj railway division). This seems like the category equivalent of a cut-and-paste move. He/she probably does not know about how to do a category move discussion. But you with your experience of page move discussions could fix this problem - but using the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion process.-- Toddy1(talk)20:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Toddy1 @Pppery I will go through the process and learn how to do it.
I have been refraining to make changes now as I have been blocked multiple times recently due to not following process. Though I believe it happened because I did not agree with certain POV Anubhavklal (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Badge on your user page
Hi @Anubhavklal.
This is regarding a badge that you have displayed at your user page. You have kept Experienced Editor badge but you dont satisfy its requirements. Although age of your age satisfies that but your edits count doesn't. You just have made 958 edits by now. So you aren't even an Apprentice Editor till now. But you are very close to it. You are required to fulfill both the requirements. So please correct that. Shaan SenguptaTalk06:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and/or Afghanistan.
You have been sanctioned for persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content, recently for example edit warring at Hindu Mahasabha to force in unsourced text about "Muslim appeasement politics". Even though you have been warned about that particular edit war, you apparently believe that you're free to add unsourced content as long as you also add a "citation needed" tag or a "who" tag. As you have been told, tags aren't get-out-of-jail-free cards for adding content without sources; if you don't have a source, don't add the content.
That means that you have to stop editing pages concerning India. Hubli is in the Indian state of Karnataka, so you are not allowed to make edits like this one of 07:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC).
The way to beat topic bans is to behave yourself and make useful edits that do not show the faults that led to your getting a topic ban. Then after maybe six months say that you are sorry for the bad behaviour the caused you to get topic-banned, and that you have mended your ways, and ask nicely whether admins would consider lifting the topic ban some time... -- Toddy1(talk)07:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anubhavklal, did you not understand my notice about a topic ban? As Toddy says, you're not allowed to edit any page concerning India (or Pakistan, or Afghanistan). I imposed the topic ban because you kept adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. You can't just ignore this ban. If you violate the ban again, you will be blocked. And please do read WP:TBAN, it will help you. It is quite short. Bishonen | tålk09:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban, per this AE request, you have been blockedindefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
