User talk:Zqxwcevrbtny
Welcome!
[edit]
|
September 2015
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page MSG: The Messenger has been reverted.
Your edit here to MSG: The Messenger was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://www.bollywoodlife.com/news-gossip/msg-the-messenger-movie-review-gurmeet-ram-rahim-singh-insan-will-test-your-patience-and-leave-you-with-a-splitting-headache/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright
[edit]
Hello Zqxwcevrbtny, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to MSG: The Messenger has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
- Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
- If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
- Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
September 2015
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh 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: Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh was changed by Zqxwcevrbtny (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.853439 on 2015-09-17T05:32:54+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Since you seem reticent to click on the links provided and keep submitting problematic content without discussion [1][2][3], I'm going to paste the content of them here for your edification:
A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.
Contributing to what is already a problematic and potentially defamatory section is not helpful.
Whatever's going on in the world of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, we have to be very careful that we're not sensationalizing something and making him look like a guilty party if he hasn't been convicted of anything. When in doubt, we should cut potentially defamatory content, not add more fuel and attention to the matter.
Per our "bold, revert, discuss" cycle, when you boldly add content, and it is reverted with a just reason, like a concern that it violates our biographies of living persons guidelines, you should not resubmit it when you are reverted, you should open a discussion on the article's talk page to seek consensus for inclusion.
When another editor reverts you, you need to open a discussion on the talk page, not resubmit the content again and again. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
CBI is fedral investigation agency of India and this aspect of his life can not be omitted from ram rahims biography .Zqxwcevrbtny (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- did you READ any of the above? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
ya i have read and not violating any clause ,if someone is facing a trail then whats wrong in mentioning it ?Zqxwcevrbtny (talk) 19:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Your actions are being reviewed at the Edit war notice board. [4] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Zqxwcevrbtny, there's no indication you have any comprehension of WP:BLPCRIME since you keep submitting content in violation of the policy. At best, this suggests you haven't read or don't understand the policy, and at worst it raises questions about your competence. The issue isn't about whether the information is "offical", the issue is about whether it could be potentially defamatory to carelessly publish these accusations on the world's largest encyclopedia. Anybody can be accused of a crime. That doesn't mean we need to publish the accusations. If you can't comprehend this, then you're not going to last long here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing., John from Idegon (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you have edited a direct quote and changed the wording [5]. Can you explain what you are trying to do here? - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 hi Kautilya , that definition was not as per Sikh Rehat Maryada or SRM ,only SRM is accepted by Akal Takht,here you can read about Sikh Rehat Maryada .Zqxwcevrbtny (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- You were asked why you changed a direct quotation, not what you thought about the quotation. Please respond. John from Idegon (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- You cannot quote from anywhere ,the source of quotation should have been accepted by supreme Sikh institute Akal Takht . SGPC only follows Sikh Rehat Maryada for the definition of Sikh.Zqxwcevrbtny (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
- Again, you are wrong. An editor can quote from any reliable source he chooses. You are not allowed to change the quote. What you can do is challenge it on the article's talk page and using reliable sources, reach a consensus on what the article's content will be. Trust me, this is the last time this concept is going to be explained to you. Any further disruptive editing on your part will be met by an invitation to discuss why you shouldn't be blocked at a noticeboard. You certainly appear to be not here to build an encyclopedia; but rather to advance your own particular theological viewpoint. John from Idegon (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 30
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amrita Sher-Gil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)