User talk:NavjotSR

Welcome

Hello, NavjotSR, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Accesscrawl (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

December 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Mitra Samaja has been reverted.
Your edit here to Mitra Samaja was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://acrazymindseye.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/idli-a-love-story/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Rafale deal controversy, you may be blocked from editing. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.

For your attacks here diff, and again here diff DBig Xrayᗙ 17:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for one week for disruptive editing and personal attacks. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I was being harassed and didn't know where to report the behaviour. Just now I am reading this report:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks

I will stop making any rude remarks on other editor's actions, I responded in this tone because I was not aware about the page where a person can be reported for their harassing behavior. This is the reason why I was commenting on the disruptive actions of the editor. However from the next time I will report the involved editor while remain polite. NavjotSR (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Based on your appeal, I have decided to lift your block. I would like to remind you to comment on content and not contributors, and to stay cool when the editing gets hot. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Afghan-Sikh Wars. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Manual scavenging, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that - however your edit did raise a few red flags, mostly for reintroducing some degraded referencing and a few wordings that didn't scan grammatically i.e. that "last good version" wasn't exactly best quality. Your track record of warnings above was also considered. Also it seemed like a content dispute with @EMsmile: so it is not obvious to outsiders as to whose "edits were correct" - probably something that should be sorted out on the article talk page. In future, consider a clearer edit summary, and perhaps making edits less drastic that a wholesale revert e.g. the more focused newer edits by Shivkarandholiya12. Regardless, your follow-up explanation of your edits seems reasonable, therefore not a test or vand, so am withdrawing the above notice. Dl2000 (talk) 16:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"CIR"

Shouting WP:CIR at established, extended-confirmed users when, barely 150 into your editing tenure, you get warned for WP:SYNTH, is at best an irony. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have done it again, and moreso in utterly broken English, only to be promptly refuted. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that User:CaradhrasAiguo is the one who started the shouting of "WP:CIR"– not you? Furthermore, the resolution linked above looks more like a compromise than a refutation. Then again, I haven't read the sources like you all have. 108.48.162.191 (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was late to comment, but Mx. Granger thankfully cleaned up after NavjotSR's mess 5 days after, yet again. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading and it nothing has to do with the refutation done by 108.48.162.191 above. You wanted to remove this part but it still stands. @108.48.162.191: your analysis is correct. CaradhrasAiguo has CIR issues likes to shout CIR more than anybody. He remains unable to understand any policy even those that he cites or anything that is being said to him. Irony is that he hates any criticism[1] but he likes to throw nonsense on others talk pages. NavjotSR (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ode for the Birthday of Queen Anne

I noticed that you erased my question on the talk page of the Ode for the Birthday of Queen Anne. If my question is stupid, then please at least explain why it is so. 108.48.162.191 (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Child prostitution‎ and Child sexual abuse. 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 lose their editing privileges. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. --John B123 (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. Crossroads ^-talk- 13:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TheImaCow. I noticed that in this edit to Yvonne Maria Schäfer, 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. Thank you. TheImaCow (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I am asking this question in my capacity as an administrator: are you connected in any way to Aman.kumar.goel? Please do not edit further until you have answered this question. creffett (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. But I checked where this is coming from and tell you that you are unnecessarily feeding a deceptive sock. Next time you must click on "contribs" of the suspicious sock before taking misrepresentation at face value. NavjotSR (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for maintaining the integrity of the Wikipedia. Zakaria1978 ښه راغلاست (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (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.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion sorting

Hello. I notice that you are manually removing closed discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography. AnomieBOT archives closed discussions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography/archive automatically and periodically. The last run was at 05:59 15 February 2022 (UTC). Is there a reason why these discussions should not be left for the bot? • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your formatting

Hi there! I've notice that you've been persistently adding !votes in deletion discussions by adding double newlines.
Please don't do that. That breaks the list of !votes and makes your vote have an extra paragraph spacing before it. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]