User talk:YaRaabAlHind

The data I'm putting is collected by me from the Rajputs biradari Sabha from kathua ,so please don't change it again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:2290:C908:0:0:EF5:20A0 (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YaRaabAlHind, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi YaRaabAlHind! 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 GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi sir can you make me learn how to edit wiki pages ? Rishabkapania77 (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you jealous of Koli people

You only removing koli word from articles, i'm not a Koli, i belong to Teli caste. PawanjiGupta (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are not allowed. Your own caste is irrelevant. I am trying to improve wikipedia by removing british-era sources which are not allowed. Please don't revert. Thank you.YaRaabAlHind (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bro but Gazetteer of bombay Presidency are legall by indian government PawanjiGupta (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bombay Presidency only existed during the British period. It is not an encyclopaedic source.YaRaabAlHind (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency considerd as legal documents by Indian Government PawanjiGupta (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not the Indian government encylopaedia.YaRaabAlHind (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Past year, we won a case in the supreme court of delhi by Gazetteer of bombay and thereafter i came to know that gazetteer are legal by indian government PawanjiGupta (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many references of Gazetteer of bombay Presidency in pages PawanjiGupta (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Gujarat high court also we won case. Writer Karman Singhji Chauhan won the case in gujarat high court with Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency PawanjiGupta (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koli people's ne YaRaabAlHind bande ki -and mari isliye... Terabaapaaya (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Your recent editing history at Koli people 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring etc

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

Please also note the message I posted on my talkpage, that in part concerned your edit-warring. Abecedare (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lalotra

What's your problem with lalotra clan? If you don't know about this Rajputs cown please do some research! Lalotra (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only have an issue with you not using reliable sources.YaRaabAlHind (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't find everything on internet and I have personally collected the information from the rajput community office from kathau,so please don't change it again and spread wrong information. Lalotra (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:YaRaabAlHind&redlink=1-delete1 Lalotra (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shaikh of Bihar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ansari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You are deliberately removing facts from articles which are sourced . Despite of warning. I am going to complaint Administrators Editor wikip6 (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the article is about a historical group of soldiers, not a social group. Also you can barely speak English and your grammar is atrocious.YaRaabAlHind (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying this......I will improve my grammar in future but won't let u remove the facts.I am giving you second warning. Editor wikip6 (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the merger of this article with Bihari rajput. ...it is about a social group Editor wikip6 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban notification

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

You are topic banned from editing all pages with content related to South Asian social groups, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for persistently disruptively editing and violating Wikipedia's policies, such as the edit warring policy, when editing about these topics. For the avoidance of doubt, your recent edits did happen in this area, and you are prohibited from editing, and prohibited from discussing, about this topic while the ban is active.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terabaapaaya

Terabaapaaya Terabaapaaya (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]