User talk:IndianHistoryEnthusiast

This is IndianHistoryEnthusiast's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anand Ranganathan (December 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anand Ranganathan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Anand Ranganathan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IndianHistoryEnthusiast! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anand Ranganathan (January 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Catrìona was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anand Ranganathan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Anand Ranganathan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Catrìona (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia:Teahouse, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi IndianHistoryEnthusiast! You created a thread called My Draft on Anand Ranganathan was rejected. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

This is your only warning; if you move a page maliciously again, as you did at M. S. A. Rao, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ——SerialNumber54129 12:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved to draft using the same guidelines used for rejection of Draft:Anand Ranganathan. Don't rush to judgement. @Serial Number 54129: — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were WP:HOUNDING to make a WP:POINT and that's the problem. If you disagree with what happened at Draft:Anand Ranganathan then seek more input from other editors rather than retaliating by moving other articles. (By the way, as you didn't sign with ~~~~ your ping to Serial Number 54129 won't have worked, but this will now.) SmartSE (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Anand Ranganathan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anand Ranganathan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anand Ranganathan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ∯WBG^converse 13:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Bishonen. "The only thing you're capable of is having a huge ego"...you may well believe this to be the case, but no-one will thank you for saying so; quite the opposite, in fact! ——SerialNumber54129 13:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful

Please note the information below. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You have recently shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

January 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for personal attacks and violating WP:POINT. Your attacks on the good faith of Winged Blades of Godric , such as "I see what you're trying to do here. You allow other articles with worse sources to remain on Wikipedia, as it is written by people you know" (my italics), "While pages like this enjoy your patronage. Slow claps for your hypocrisy" are completely unacceptable. So is your attack on Sitush ("The only thing you're capable of is having a huge ego") and your move of M. S. A. Rao to draft — a violation of WP:POINT, as your own comment here makes clear. When you return from the block, please speak decently to others, and comment on content, not on the contributor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 16:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Burhan Wani, 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. ∯WBG^converse 16:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: I would appreciate it if you stop WP:Hounding me. ThanksIndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Your recent editing history at Koenraad Elst shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Doug Weller talk 14:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked for personal attacks before, not a good idea accuse an editor of hounding you who had many edits to the article before you showed up

The first edit by Winged Blades of Godric was in April 2019. He's made 62 edits there. He hasn't followed you there and accusing him of hounding is a clear personal attack. Pleaes retract it. It's also inappropriate to make such accusations in edit summaries. Do these things again and you may find yourself with a longer block. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed the fact that you were blocked for a personal attack on WBG. That combined with your accusation of hounding when he reverted you on an article he never edited before could convince Admins that you were the one who followed him. Another reason you need to retract your accusation. Doug Weller [User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 14:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I made edits before him. I didn't revert any of his edits, he reverted my edits. What do you mean by "could convince admins that you were following him". I don't know this person. I only realized its him, because my articles were edited in quick succession. This bullying attitude and toxic atmosphere towards new people who want to contribute to Wikipedia is disappointing. IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming that you edited before his first edit in April? Perhaps you don't know about watchlists - the article is on his watchlist and he saw that you had blanked a legitimate part of the lead. And your block notice makes clear that you were blocked by User:Bishonen for attacking him and another editor. Worse yet when he gave you a mild and accurate warning about minor edits you then accused him of hounding you. You've attacked two editors but you feel bullied? What you need to do is atart learning about our policy and guidelines and learn to show good faith when other editors revert you. As you are inexperienced you need to accept the possibility that those reverts may have been done for good reason. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

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.

— Newslinger talk 06:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 10:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]