User talk:Nangu karna

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Nangu karna! Thank you for your contributions. I am Beeblebrox and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Beeblebrox (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For protection of any page

I want to learn that how can i protect any page from public editing, overall i want to say that how can i send the request to wiki Admin to lock that page(semi protection) Nangu karna (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the protection policy for details of how and why protection is applied to pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article rewrite

Please do not remove sourced material from Wikipedia articles, as you did with this edit to Karna. If you dispute the content, or the validity of the sources, please bring the topic up for a discussion at the talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, really, don't do this without discussing on the talk page. Wikipedia works through consensus. You don't get to change the page contents simply because you like your version better. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve locked the page for a few days. Please follow the above advice and take your concerns to the talk page. It’s important for other users to understand why you are pushing these changes, and an explanation from you is the only way for them to know that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.

I edited Karna page because those all points were false according to original Mahabharat. Nangu karna (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Krishna, but we cannot accept original research. 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. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.

I had edited Krishna page with authentic source then please dont remove my edits Nangu karna (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about this issue multiple times. You seem to have been engaged in an edit war and have removed sourced material. You also have added unsourced or not properly sourced material to multiple articles. Do not continue to do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honorifics

Just to let you know, Wikipedia articles don't use "honorifics" such as "Lord" when referring to religious figures. This is because Wikipedia as a global encyclopedia is read by people of all religions and none, and has to remain neutral in tone in respect of religious matters: Noyster (talk), 11:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Karna. 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. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abusing multiple accounts. 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. 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 ~~~~}}. regentspark (comment) 12:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23 July 2018

You are hereby being warned for repeatedly removing content from reliable sources and adding original research, writing intentional nonsense, disruptive reverts against the improvement of the article. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Astra (weapon). 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. Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Astra (weapon), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Blazearon21 (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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. Abecedare (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]