User talk:Ahmadjansadat2

November 2018

Hello, I'm Longhair. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Pakol, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Longhair\^talk 08:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Yusufzai, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Afghans in India, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Pathan (disambiguation). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Afghan. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 05:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Pakol. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Pakol. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 06:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your continued misuse of sources and addition of false information at Pakol. Thank you. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 07:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/.hodajan, 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.

- R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pakol; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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 find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]