User talk:FDMD04

May 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Dance Plus 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: Dance Plus was changed by FDMD04 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.913574 on 2021-05-03T07:02:44+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Pushpa, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Ab207 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FDMD04, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi FDMD04! 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 Bop34 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank u FDMD04 (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021 (2)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Raghav Juyal. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raghav Juyal

I have started a new section at Talk:Raghav_Juyal#Following_the_Manual_of_Style to give us an opportunity to discuss our recent edits at Raghav Juyal. I invite you to share your thoughts there with the hope of reaching consensus on how to proceed. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't participated in any communication on this topic (see WP:Communication is required), I have restored the edits to Raghav Juyal that are in accordance with the manual of Style, Wikipedia policies and the associated documentation/guidance for the templates used. If you disagree, do not revert the edits, but, instead, discuss them on the talk page (Talk:Raghav_Juyal. Thank you. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021 (3)

Your recent editing history at Raghav Juyal 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have not participated in discussions over these edits (WP:Communication is required, but, instead, revert the edits that are in accordance with the Manual of Style, Wikipedia policy and guidance for the templates that are used. I conclude, therefore that your intent is not to communicate and to continue edit warring. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FDMD04 reported by User:108.56.139.120 (Result: ). Thank you. —108.56.139.120 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you cite reliable sources

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Iswarya Menon, you may be blocked from editing. This is especially critical in biographies of living people and with information like dates of birth. —C.Fred (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Raghav Juyal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2021 (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 Raghav Juyal. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Raghav Juyal. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MB 14:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

I have blocked you for 1 month for comments like this and this. Regarding the first, please read Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Regarding the second, you have no power to block users, you are not an administrator. I am, however, and I will quickly block you indefinitely the next time you do anything like that. Please take this time off from editing to brush up on Wikipedia's Behavioral guidelines. If you believe this block was made in error, or you wish to request an unblock for another reason, use the template {{unblock}}. Have a good day. --Jayron 32 14:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

– bradv🍁 02:00, 30 May 2021 (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/FDMD04, 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. 108.56.139.120 (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2021 (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/FDMD04, 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.

-- DaxServer (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]