User talk:Ashokkbhalse

November 2023

Thank you for contributing to the article Balai. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Best to refrain from silly threats in your edit summaries as well. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem as before. Please do not use mirrors (copies of Wikipedia material) such as 'dbpedia', other open wikis (such as 'sikhwiki'), google search results, or blogs. Thanks. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what kind of sources are reliable or more authenticate for Wikipedia edits? Ashokkbhalse (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Balai have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Balai was changed by Ashokkbhalse (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.981049 on 2023-11-25T10:01:22+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 11:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 11:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Balai, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Balai, you may be blocked from editing. Dl2000 (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ashokkbhalse! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Balai 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. Dl2000 (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2023 (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 noticeboards.
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, as you did at Chapa, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Ashokkbhalse! Your additions to Balai have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

You need to take your complaint to the article talk page. I just reverted you on Template talk:Help me, which is a place to discuss a template, not the article you're interested in. Word of warning: you've been pretty disruptive--whether that's due to incompetence or a refusal to read and understand our guidelines is not really relevant. You are likely to get blocked for either edit warring or for WP:CIR (please click on that link). Drmies (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Balai. Dl2000 (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing

wikipedia is not a reliable source. don't cite it. ltb d l (talk) 10:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors, again

As we previously discussed, the link to 'en-academic' you added to Chhapa clearly identifies itself as a mirror. Please stop adding these. Additionally, we cannot cite Wikipedia itself, as you did here multiple times. Sources must meet our criteria outlined at WP:RS - please slow down your editing and carefully evaluate your sources.Sam Kuru (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start? You keep overwriting a disambiguation article, and you clearly have not taken the time to learn what that even means: this edit summary doesn't even begin to address the problem. There are problems with sources--like here, where BTW again you are overwriting a disambiguation page, and you're inserting some thing on Academia that is clearly not a peer-reviewed paper, and it's not even a decent essay (it cites no sources, and really is just a list of bullet points without any context). There are the Wikipedia mirrors and links, which you were alerted to above, and the copyright violations--and the general sort of lack of competence in writing the text and the edit summaries. Finally, at some point you seem to have just stopped responding to editors' and administrators' concerns here on the talk page, while continuing to edit war. If you wish to be unblocked, you should probably read up on what we do here, how we do it, and how your efforts and collegiality fell short. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock from article editing.

hey, I was blocked for editing article. They blocked me by saying that i was done some disruptive edits. but in real I am really don't aware about disruptive edits and don't know what is actually disruptive edits are. I am new to Wikipedia and in present at learning stage perhaps i had made a mistake Unknowingly.

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).

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

Request reason:

being new to Wikipedia and made a mistake according to guideline Unknowingly Ashokkbhalse (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2023 (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.

Request for unblock account

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for editing article. They blocked me by saying that i was done some disruptive edits. but in real I am really don't aware about disruptive edits and don't know what is actually disruptive edits are. I am new to Wikipedia and in present at learning stage perhaps i had made a mistake Unknowingly, Please consider my request in serious way its an humble request for the mistake that was happen because of the lack of knowledge Ashokkbhalse (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you don't know how your edits were disruptive, we will have to keep the block in place to prevent your disruption. We will be happy to consider unblocking you once you have learned more about Wikipedia and what was wrong with your edits, to the point where you can tell us what was wrong and what you will do differently. There is no deadline for this, take all the time you need. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2023 (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.

Request for unblocking.

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).

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

Request reason:

3 days passed from my last unblocked request, they declined my unblock request by saying that i haven't learned more about Wikipedia and the basic guidelines of the platform i was considered their advice in humble way and had started learning about the basic guideline of Wikipedia what i got from my learnings that there is a dignity of Wikipedia edits we can't go for edit independently without proof and sources there is way of editing article which basically start with correction of grammatical mistakes by reading article. at end, As i had considered instruction of Wikipedia administer and now finished basic learnings of Wikipedia guidelines. therefore raising an another humble request for unblocking my account Ashokkbhalse (talk) 12:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One open request at a time, please. And do consider the below. — Daniel Case (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2023 (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.

This request is barely coherent. Is English the main language you use? If not, you may wish to edit the version of Wikipedia that is in your primary language. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

regarding unblocking

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).

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

Request reason:

3 days passed from my last unblocked request, they declined my unblock request by saying that i haven't learned more about Wikipedia and the basic guidelines of the platform i was considered their advice in humble way and had started learning about the basic guideline of Wikipedia what i got from my learnings that there is a dignity of Wikipedia edits we can't go for edit independently without proof and sources there is way of editing article which basically start with correction of grammatical mistakes by reading article. at end, As i had considered instruction of Wikipedia administer and now finished basic learnings of Wikipedia guidelines. therefore raising an another humble request for unblocking my account. according to latest notification from administrator my account block has already expired but in real account is still in the list of active blocks even pop-up of unblocked account shown on edit page. Ashokkbhalse (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is still barely comprehensible as a request. It's becoming clear that you may not have the English skills to edit here, which is fine. I would suggest you go to the Wikipedia page for your primary language and edit there, as having a good grasp of the English language and writing competently is required on the English Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2023 (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.