User talk:Hari147

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hari147. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a site where a monastery existed built by him with an inscription of his donation as the Son of a king to the monastery and the Buddha statue worshipped by him had been recovered about 5 years ago in Kancheepuram. Hari147 (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bodhidharma. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sweets from the Indian subcontinent, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Indian and Tamil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Konar (caste), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Konar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Whispering was:

This submission is not adequately supported by

Referencing for beginners and Citing sources

.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

I tried to find the sources listed at the bottom of the page but wasn't able to come up with any

reliable sources

.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Malayadhwaja Pandya and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  db-self
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Whispering 18:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hari147! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Whispering 18:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 16 (number), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Immortal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Heo Hwang-ok is just a myth/legend, not a historical person (there's not a shred of evidence for her ever having existed, and even less evidence for her having been born in India...), so do not add "Infobox royalty" (which is for historical persons) or an unsourced "birth name" to the article. Thank you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there.There is a tomb dedicated to Heo Hwang-ok in Gimhae,South Korea and her remains.Although it cant be confirmed if she was from india,there exists her tomb.Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari147 (talk • contribs)

• No, there isn't a "tomb with her remains" there, only a monument to a queen described only in legends. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Heo Hwang-ok. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You have now been told by two different editors that "Infobox royalty" is for real historical people only, not legends/myths, so stop. Any further attempt to add it will result in a formal warning. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hindustani language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hari147. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Fried chicken (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Indian

Sentinelese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to

Christian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at China–United States trade war 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. Viztor (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at China–United States trade war 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. Viztor (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:China–United_States_trade_war You may think it is cool you to track and revert all my edits. While I refrained from revert your edits, you have not extended the same courtesy, by doing so, you may eventually find yourself in an awkward position. You will need to make reasonable edits before further other disruptive acts. Best Viztor (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Syopsis (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The removal comment said "unsourced and unnecessary" - so, even if not unnecessary the edits are still unsourced. Now that you know editor(s) disagree, you should take this to the talkpage (with a source), following

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hari147. Shenme (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hari147 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don’t see any disruptive edits that I have done so far. Most edits have been done on good faith and should not be taken into biased. I have made corrective edits to many pages with punctuation fixes and not sure why users are pinpointing posts from 2016 and saying there’s a trend from three years,which seema illogical. Furthermore,the edits on Xi Jinping were latest photos and not sure why people are saying am doing something wrong.

Decline reason:

So sorry. I cannot unblock you at this time. As you do not understand the reason for the block, you cannot avoid the behavior that led to the block. Please see This ANI discussion for the reasons. Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your talk page is full of warnings and raised concerns. Perhaps you should consider these as a part of the reasoning behind your block.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet not a valid reason to block me arbitrarily. Many users have issues as well but its quite odd to suddenly block me for out of no reason. If it is because of biased views on the

Syamantaka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Indian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fowler&fowler. Could you provide the reason for reverting my latest edit? I understand why you might have reverted the one on the flags issue. However I cannot comprehend the reason for reverting my edits on adding the kingdom of Travancore. The kingdom, historically was acceded to company rule, and is a proven fact. If there is issue on possible racial bias, I suggest that this should not be taken upon this platform, where facts must always take precedence over biasness. Futhermore, I do not appreciate how you might refer to me or other users as “drivebys”. Please note that Wikipedia is a platform that is open for editing and learning by all, and does not constitute any form of personal authority, even if you are an experienced editor. Thank you.
Hari147 (talk) 12:02, 05 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hari147. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lapablo (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I do not understand how is the original name not followed and harder to comprehend, which you have mentioned above. Regardless this is my view having seen news articles and people references. To respect ur choice we will leave it as it is for now but I would warn you that this would eventually change. Hari147 (talk)

What do you mean by warn you? Maintain civility. The discussion took place in Allahabad article and the RfC/consensus took place there. I'm following the consensus. And the

WP:COMMONNAME in India might not be the COMMONNAME worldwide. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I did not mean it in an uncivil way but just stating that this may be subject to changes as the name used changed quite a while ago and domestic usage is prevalent.Regardless I agree with u that it might not have the international coverage that would fairplay its usage. Hari147 (talk)

That's OK mate. I use the term Prayagraj in other online interactions and in real life. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)dit[reply]

Hari, I see that you made the same type of change at

Mathglot Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot The term has been used frequently in local language, papers and the term Faizabad is not commonly used in India anymore. If you can notice the edit requests they are made because the people are more familiar with the term Ayodhya rather than Faizabad. Thus i request the page be corrected as this is a topic associated with Indians and the majority have already voiced their concern. Thanks. Hari147 (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told about

WP:COMMONNAME and how it works multiple times. I don't know why you keep insisting? This is an English Wikipedia with a global audience and these name changes need to get widely accepted. Your reverts are just disruptive. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

If you can't supply a Reliable Source, you are just wasting time.50.111.22.69 (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I believe it might have probably been a fake news. But otherwise I’ll let u know once confirmed Hari147 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I believe it might have probably been a fake news. But otherwise I’ll let u know once confirmed Hari147 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sambandar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be an article about this subject? Please give your opinion here.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 16:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi it seems illogical to receive a notification just because of making wiki edits on these topics. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is a open-source platform that allows users to edit articles freely. Any such “sanctions” undermines the nature of Wikipedia, and the allowance of users to edit freely, unless Wikipedia has started being managed by an organisation which imposes such rules, and of which the details are not transparent to the public. If you do want to post a warning notification please do so on all other topics as well, not just on the topics u have mentioned above. I am quite sure there can be “sanctions” imposed on editors on other topics as well, such as on USA, Donald Trump, UK, Brexit, and so on, let alone selectively warning users. Edits are made according to guidelines, and topics are debated fairly on pages. I hope you have learnt to edit without bias. Thank you. Hari147 (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to see this originally. This isn't a warning notification, it's an alert given simply because you are editing within the topic area. We definitely do not allow people to edit freely, we have policies and guidelines and all the relevant details are publicly available. You clearly didn't read the alert - if you had your reply would I hope have shown more understanding. These alerts come from decisions based on cases concerning the conduct of editors in certain topic areas, cases lasting over several weeks under the auspices of the WP:Arbitration Committee on which I served two elected terms, and involve comments from large numbers of editors. All publicly available and you could have read about this one. We don't have discretionary sanctions for every topic. The sanctions also cover behaviour on talk pages. Doug Weller talk 09:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for that clarification. Regardless of the outdated notification, i understand that this is just a general warning to all user by you.--Hari147 (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allow to change the content you wrote about yadav Yadavsailandra (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yea I saw ur edit comment already. It’s ok I understand. Thank you and hopefully things are fine wherever you are Hari147 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller this was six months ago. What are you on about? Hari147 (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing you the courtesy of replying to your question, even if 5 months late. Maybe I shouldn't have bothered? Doug Weller talk 11:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to reply. It just seemed odd to me at first that u pinged me to something that happened quite a while ago.--Hari147 (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I see that you're trying to add a "Remaining" column to Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data.

I too have thought of adding the column, and have brought it to the lead editors' attention. However, there is a consensus that there are to be no more new columns for the future.

Relevant discussions for adding the "active cases" column can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=active+cases&prefix=Template+talk%3A2019%E2%80%9320+coronavirus+pandemic+data%2F&fulltext=Search+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1

Cheers.

RayDeeUx (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must be confused, what was my unconstructive edit? I merely paraphrased what that study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6183933/) said in it's methods section, you can check for yourself. I have properly fixed the citations which might have caused confusions to grammatical errors Qayrawan (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Arjayay (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours from certain pages (Open defecation) 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 ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You removed well sourced information and edit warred t. I have blocked you from editing that article only- if you agree to discuss your concerns on the article talk page and refrain from further edit warring, the block can be removed. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hari147, what did you mean when you told 331dot "No wonder your country is number 1 in corona virus cases and deaths. Well good for you and i hope its not the end of it as well." at

Can you please show the proof that Seeman patents are malayali Bharathamani (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are very funny. You have labelled it as plagarism because it is not tuned to your liking/ biased viewpoint. I have consistently seen u reverting my article edits. Please correct all the other articles before pinpointing all the articles i have edited. --Hari147 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). - Arjayay (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Please check other articles like Azad Kashmir. Indic script is the official script used. --Hari147 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of

here

.

Broadly,

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks

. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Note these are different as they were enacted by the community, not the Arbitration Committee. Read the links. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did u add this here?? I don’t remember any recent edits in relation to covid-19?? Hari147 (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you read your contribution history. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit i made on covid-19 was made on 3rd May. Four weeks is a long time. Nevertheless, bombarding my talk page with constant warnings and alerts is fine, and i appreciate your time and effort looking after me. Perhaps you could consider doing this to all editors as well editing pages related to covid-19 and other such pages? Then it wouldnt seem like you are singling someone out. Thank you --Hari147 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Chinese president.jpg

Thanks for uploading

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a discussion about your recent edits at the

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely

topic banned from all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan

, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

log of sanctions. 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 using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement 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. — Newslinger talk 16:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Hari147, three of the edits you have made since 20 June violated the above topic ban:

• Punjabi people, an "ethnolinguistic group associated with the Punjab
  region", a region "comprising areas of eastern Pakistan and northern India".
• Special:Diff/966305971 in Pampore: Pampore is part of Jammu and Kashmir, a union territory administered by India.
• Special:Diff/966306205 in Pampore: Same as above

Since the scope of the

hi newslinger, as I said, I was not fully aware of this ban at all until newslinger pinged me on this. Furthermore I do not think those edits were Unconstructive. Nevertheless, I like to repeal this ban on the grounds that I was not aware of this ban Hari147 (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hari147, you were notified of the topic ban in

notification feature to stay on top of discussions that relevant to your editing. As explained in User talk:Newslinger § Appeal against sanction to make edits freely in wikipedia

, I have declined your appeal because:

• It does not adequately address the concerns described in
  personal attack
  and the insufficiently explained edits).
• It was made too soon after the sanction was placed (20 June).
• Some of the edits you have made after 20 June violated the
  topic ban (Special:Diff/964794670, Special:Diff/966305971, and Special:Diff/966306205
  ).

The other appeal options described in

WP:ACDS § Appeals by sanctioned editors remain available to you, but I recommend that you hold off on appealing for a minimum of six months to maximize your chances of success, using the time to make constructive contributions in other topic areas without violating the topic ban again. — Newslinger talk 06:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello

A new discussion is going on, so you can write your opinion on the issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_20#Category%3AAllahabad_division

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no valid link or reliable source of that image given. That's why I request you to please remove that image. I will be highly obliged. Thank You for your precious time ❤️ Abhimanyu4169 (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are ongoing discussions on Russian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Frisian Wikipedia amongst others to finally change the article's name from Allahabad to Prayagraj.

So please use google translate and write a short opinion, why these Wikipedias should accept the name change and not keep their anti-indian point of view

https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9A_%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E/22_%D0%B8%D1%8E%D0%BD%D1%8F_2020

and on the others it is on the article Allahabad discussion Page, in Frisian you can write English.

I count on you.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tecumseh*1301. I am so sorry but as much as i want to support this cause i am currently under this indefinite ban from commenting on topics related to South Asia in general. Talk about freedom of speech when ironically users cant handle differing views! Hari147 (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban from all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed (including in Special:Diff/1074296520, Special:Diff/1067351388, Special:Diff/1066056725, Special:Diff/1042831674, and Special:Diff/1036185483), you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

— Newslinger talk 00:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Please note that there are only two permitted exceptions to topic bans, both listed at

WP:BANEX). Other edits within the topic area are not permitted, even if they are minor. If you would like to appeal your topic ban, it is recommended to make constructive edits in other topic areas for an extended period of time (generally 6 months or more) before filing an appeal. — Newslinger talk 00:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Natchathara temples, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Uttara and Mula.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a discussion about your edits at AE. The thread is here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently violating your topic ban from India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, despite clear explanations of the ban here and despite a temporary block for violating it in March 2022.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 08:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hari147 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have discontinued talk on any conflicting topics from India, Afganistan and Pakistan. My recent edits have been on articles of low confidence, thus i do not see the reason to be banned indefinitely from editing 

Decline reason:

You were blocked for repeatedly violating your topic ban, so you need to address those violations in any appeal. This request falls well short of what is expected

for a successful appeal, it pretty much just states you don't think you should be blocked.Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.