User talk:Fenal Kalundo

May 2017

Hello, I'm Guanaco. I noticed that in this edit to Nathu La and Cho La incidents, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —Guanaco 09:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Nathu La and Cho La incidents, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fenal Kalundo, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Fenal Kalundo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Mz7 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Nathu La and Cho La incidents. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and 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 Wikipedia. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are not reading the edit summaries that the editors have written while reverting your edits, e.g., this one: Reverted to revision 782391467 by Tyler Durden: Please discuss this on the talk page. Tyler Durdan has raised some importnat points. If you have a neutral source then fine otherwise this fine. Discuss on talk page before editing. You have already done three reverts in a 24-hour period. Any further reverts by you will be grounds for sanctions. Please do not any more edits until you reach consensus on the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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 that 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.

Please note that you are responsible for knowing and applying the policies of Wikipedia while editing India-Pakistan-Afghanistan pages. In particular, you need to understand and follow WP:RS, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kautilya3: I don't think you find the right person. I don't even edit that page. -- Fenal Kalundo (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page you are currently disputing, Nathu La and Cho La incidents, is covered by these discretionary sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I'm a new user of Wikipedia. I know I'm not very familiar with the policy but I have correct all misconducts after being reminded. Plus, I don't think my misconduct is that bad and deserves to be sanctioned. Therefore I want to raise an appeal here. But before I do so, I learned from discretionary sanctions that The enforcing administrator must provide a notice on the sanctioned editor’s talk page specifying the misconduct for which the sanction has been issued as well as the appeal process. while I was not provided that. Please specifying my misconduct that caused this sanction thus I can appeal for this accordingly. —Fenal Kalundo (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, and I didn't sanction you. I have only given you an alert that sanctions are applicable. If you read and follow the policies you have been pointed to, you will be fine. The reason for my warning is that you are ignoring the policies concerning reliable sources. You have been told about this multiple times already. Please don't use web sites. If you are citing proper newspapers, please provide the names of the newspapers, the dates of publications, and authors, when known. You should be clear about whether they are news items or opinion columns. Please see WP:NEWSORG. Newspapers are not generally reliable sources for history.

I know that there are a lot of policies to absorb for a new user. However, when experienced editors tell you that your edits are against policy, you need to understand why there are so. You can't keep repeating the same arguments. All the best. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fenal, mate, it is a notice, that everybody active in the area should be aware of. Not a sanction as you seem to be thinking. You were not sanctioned in anyway. You gotta read what the notice says. The first line of the notice itself clearly reads: It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. So calm down and take a note of what Kautilya is saying above. On a side note, you are reported for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry by another user here - [1]. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kautilya3: OK, thanks. Looks like I misunderstand something. In regards to the publish information you mentioned that I should add, I definitely can provide them but I don't know how to do it. It is easy to do that in visual mode, but in talk page that only allow typing in codes, I don't know how to add those information. Regards. —Fenal Kalundo (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the full references any way you like, until you become more experienced. But the more serious problem is that your sources are at best newspapers, which are not reliable for history. Only peer-reviewed scholarly sources should be used for history. If a newspaper reports that a scholar or government authority has said something, you can state that, but you need to specify who said it. This is called WP:In-text attribution. You cannot report opinions of individuals as if they are facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1RR on Nathu La and Cho La clashes

I hope you remember that Nathu La and Cho La clashes is under WP:1RR restriction. That means you can't revert more than once in 24 hours. Capitals00 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the above part, the article has no 1RR restriction. Capitals00 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Nathu La and Cho La clashes. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and 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 Wikipedia. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Razer^Talk 15:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring noticeboard

You can reply to the report: User:Fenal_Kalundo reported by User:Capitals00 Capitals00 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fenal Kalundo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I can't believe it actually results a block by being reported by someone who doesn't have good intension in the first place. I thought it is too ridiculous that I need to play his game when he reported me so I didn't reply that page. This is not a groundless claim that this editor is ill intended. The editor, who file this report, attacked me personally at the start of the discussion in the talk page: [[2]]. :Here I just want to justify my actions. Though it appear an editing war, you can see it actually followed a routine. I think it is my last four edits results in this block, you can cut it up into two stages each include two edits. ::In first stage, I did my first edit because I open a discussion in talk page, no one talk with me so I think it is fine to edit it directly. This get reverted saying there is no consensus, since the editor who reverted this didn't show up in talk page then I did the second edit trying to use edit summary to communicate with him. I reverted it back and explain to him that it appears no consensus because nobody oppose my point or even talk with me in talk page. This get reverted as well and then it proceeds to the second stage. ::In second stage, my first edit is based on the rationale it shouldn't be like the opposing editors don't even talk about the content with me but simply block me to make any change, so I insert a tag into the article to indicate there is a dispute in presence, hoping I can push it to a meaningful discussion. Again, even this trying was reverted with someone didn't show up in talk page, so I try to use edit summary to communicate with him as well then I did a second try. Failed again, then I drop it and file a case in Dispute resolution noticeboard seeking for third party's help. Is that wrong to try things to force a meaningful discussion before bother an outside mediation? Fenal Kalundo (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Good, you attempted to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. But clearly you did not have consensus. First, the fact that your edits were reverted clearly shows there's no consensus for your position. And looking at Talk:Nathu La and Cho La clashes, it's very clear that several other editors oppose your edits. Yamla (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.