User talk:Kamlesh4rmBhopal

Welcome!

Hello, Kamlesh4rmBhopal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! utcursch | talk 17:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you brother, I will look into all of it. Kamlesh4rmBhopal (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Battle of the Hydaspes. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 18:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is using the excuse of the user being a probable Sockpuppet whilst their pristine quality edits otherwise sticking to the most rigid of Wikipedia guidelines a feasible reason for reverting their edits? Because otherwise it appears to be just Vandalism. Do get me links for it. What is otherwise the flaw in the edits?

Also, Sir this is not the first time I believe you Dr.K and Khirurg have collaborated together to revert another guy as a sock for Aseem's edits. I have verified that the guy had nothing to so with Aseem personally, but anyways since aseem was banned anyways, I have not cared for it. Please respond to me. Kamlesh4rmBhopal (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Lord Aseem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. —SpacemanSpiff 13:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]