User talk:Info2012

Welcome!

Hello, Info2012, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Hello, Info2012. You have new messages at Talk:Sonia Gandhi.
Message added 08:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have put up a reply there. Kindly view. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 08:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy deletion of "User talk:203.212.25.6"

A page you created, User talk:203.212.25.6, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is a test page. Use the sandbox for testing.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our

Thank you. Calabe1992 20:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, thank for your message. I request you to please lock-down the rating section of page as "203.212.25.6" is deleting the information intentionally in bad faith.

Your edits on

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Indian rupee sign. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not add items that do not have references other that at Save Indian Rupee Symbol, I have not been able to find a single credible reference for the edits made by you so far. For those references available editors have added the items to the page. This wikipedia page is not a forum to fight a RTI war. So please refrain from repeatedly editing and reformatting the page to confirm to your or your organisations beliefs.--PremKudva^Talk 09:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By removing the information your are promoting the corruption. All the information provided by me are backed with Delhi High Court orders. Do your own research and stop removing the facts from wiki page.

You currently appear to be engaged in an

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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. Elizium23 (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not engaged in any war truth is the person who is trying to remove the facts from the page is paid shill. The content is backed by Government of India Court orders.

You have made a false statement, there are no Indian Court orders regarding the Indian rupee sign at all. I have checked your links and the Delhi High Court rulings and also news articles. The court has closed the case and the ruling has yet to be posted. The court case you repeatedly mentioned regarding Indian rupee sign, was I have subsequently found out regarding selection of logos via competitions only. The court doesn't mention anything about the rupee sign, and the PIL filed earlier was quashed. Refrain from adding these false statements to the article. --PremKudva^Talk 05:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

March 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an

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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

If you attempt to add that information one more time, I will ask for you to be blocked for

consensus, and it's clear that several other editors have rejected your addition. You can attempt to discuss the issue further on the India notice board or on the article talk pages, but you can't just try to force your points into the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You mean to say Indian Court order [ http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=19132&yr=2013 ] is not a reliable source ? Sorry i don't buy your argument ! And you also can't just try to force your censorship. I had provided authentic information from multiple sources i don't know whats you problem is.

I mean to say that [1] is not a reliable source. But while you mention it, no, that's not actually a reliable source. Well, it is, but it's a

primary source, which we generally avoid using, and when we do use them, we can only use them for exactly what they say, not for any sort of interpretation. In any event, since you refuse to follow our rules, I will now ask for you to be blocked (I'm an admin, and can block people, but since I'm involved in the content issue, I can't block you myself). Qwyrxian (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2013 (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. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you likely to be blocked per the above report, which can be found at

WP:AN3#User:Info2012 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: ). There may still be time for you to reply there and make a sincere offer to change your approach. When you describe others' well-intentioned edits as vandalism you're forfeiting any sympathy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been

personal attacks. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• I've increased the length of your block by 48 hours because of block evasion at Indian rupee.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I've increased the length of your block again because you coninue to evade your block in both Indian rupee and Indian rupee sign. The block will expire 2 weeks from today.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please do not add or change content without

reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  Ryan Vesey 16:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at

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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection

.

Additionally, the material you are adding is not

reliable and is borderline spam. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to 2013 Boston Marathon. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DVdm (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Link contains verifiable mainstream media videos.[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to 2013 Boston Marathon. DVdm (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at 2013 Boston Marathon. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

Your first set of edits in many months was to attempt to reinsert the same information, backed by the same unreliable, promotional sources as before. Just because it's been a few months does not mean that Wikipedia's rules have changed. Any further disruption and I will request that your account be reblocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into

sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Info2012, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations

, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Shovon (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply ]