User talk:Praveen3333

Derogatory vandalism by self styled editors

In the introduction: the intoduction starts with term 'non elite' and 'backward caste' so as to give readers as impression of a lower community. The Jats won majority of medals for India in recent olympics, commonwealth games and they are present in every sphere of life- from doctors, engineers, sports( Sushil kumar, virender sehwagvijender singh, saina nehwal). Acting(Ranbir hooda. mallika sherawat, dharmender), Politics, building( DLF) , Army(including present army chief)so why the negative aspects are highlighted?

In the Varna status only based on fiction of Uma Bharti it is written: Uma Chakravarti reports that the varna status of the Jats improved over time, with the Jats starting in the untouchable/chandala varna during the eighth century, changing to shudra status by the 11th century, which is offensive , without evidence.

Whenever I tried to edit the page by highlighting achievements of Jats in sports, army , positive social customs they have been deleted.

It is a clear assault on the community by other caste hindus who think that the best way to exert superiority of there caste is to highlight negative aspects of Jats.

It is offensive to a large majority of Jats (including 60 percent of sikhs who are Jat)

I have stopped donating to WIKIPEDIA and will try to raise awareness about its content.

Please look into it and get it fixed.

Regards, Pawan W Wikipedia information team Dear PC, Thank you for your e-mail. This is a content issue and beyond the scope of the volunteer response team. We do not have an editor-in-chief or an editorial board, so if you have suggestions for improving or correcting an...

P PC to Wikipedia 0 minutes agoDetails Well someone needs to take responsibility for the contents. If we will allow any rogue to write anything about anyone it will put the reliability of Wikipedia in question.

July 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Propofol has 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: Propofol was changed by Praveen3333 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.885449 on 2013-07-28T23:58:41+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jat people may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

October 2011|year=2001|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-79842-6|page=201}}</ref>}}{{efn|"In the later nineteenth century, this thinking led colonial officials to try to protect Sikh

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jat people may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

October 2011|year=2001|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-79842-6|page=201}}</ref>}}{{efn|"In the later nineteenth century, this thinking led colonial officials to try to protect Sikh

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jat people, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Jat people, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Jat people. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jat people. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Jat people. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Sitush. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]