User talk:Utk2

April 2017

Hello, I'm Exemplo347. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 2016 Dhulagarh riots seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Dhulagorh riot

Please do not make blind reverts instead discuss on talk page as all what I have included is as per sources. Why no mention of 12th December 2016's incident? If discussion failed then will be going to DRN. --45.123.13.164 (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I am requesting you again to discuss the issue and provide sources for verification. Please, do not make a blind revert again. Thanks, --45.123.13.164 (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Also this[1] isn't a minor edit! --45.123.13.164 (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2016 Dhulagarh riots. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --45.123.13.164 (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2016 Dhulagarh riots, 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. 45.123.13.164 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at 2016 Dhulagarh riots. --45.123.13.164 (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2016 Dhulagarh riots shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mz7 (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you make this edit? If so, please be aware that Wikipedia policy generally does not allow the use of multiple accounts when it creates the impression that more people are engaged in a dispute. Abusing multiple accounts is one of the most serious violations of trust on Wikipedia and can lead to lengthy blocks from editing. Leniency is usually shown to users who admit using multiple accounts and promise to avoid it in the future. With regards to 2016 Dhulagarh riots, I have protected the page against editing as a preventative measure to stop the edit war. Please discuss any problems with the article on Talk:2016 Dhulagarh riots, and seek dispute resolution if you reach an impasse. Mz7 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: I checked the two accounts based on a post to my Talk page. They are  Confirmed. I am going to block and tag the puppet account. I would recommend a one-week block of the master, but I don't want to step on your toes. What do you think? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks for the check and letting me know! I agree with your recommendation and have now gone ahead and blocked the master for 1 week. Mz7 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Mz7 (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)