User talk:Italawar

You too, for the same Vinod Chaubey article and other reasons, please do not edit war or post on my talk page. That section and those words were there before my first edit to this article. Those are contributions from other editors and okay because they cover the different sides, meet the NPOV and other core wikipedia community agreed content guidelines. Italawar (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Italawar,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Me Too Urban Naxal for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

TomCat4680 (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop editing articles for a bit and actually talk to someone on a talk page. You can do it here or on one of the article talk pages. ~ GB fan 14:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message in Page

@Vijethnbharadwaj: Please add new discussions at the bottom of the page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Italawar (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from online sources. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, most of your additions had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can we have redirects for every state and UT when protests didn't happen everywhere to the extent of having a separate page. Please figure out the way of making the template less confusing and less redirecting for now. Maybe unlink redirects.

Moved to Template talk:Citizenship Amendment Act protests

there is no need to move the redirects. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 15:39, 28 February 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.

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.

Note that

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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.
The page is on one-revert rule (1RR). Please read the edit notice carefully. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Citizenship Amendment Act protests in CAA protests in National Capital Territory of Delhi. Since you had some involvement with the Citizenship Amendment Act protests in CAA protests in National Capital Territory of Delhi redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect

]

Godi Media

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — 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

This is the exact same content that was deleted before, so you already knew it was unacceptable. bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Italawar, edits such as this one are absolutely unacceptable in an area under discretionary sanctions. You need to adhere strictly to

@Vanamonde93:, Don't assume that an edit summary can constitute "discussion". Italawar (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Public image of Narendra Modi § Modi Lies

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 15:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for persistent personal attacks and editing contrary to the policy on neutral point of view. 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 ~~~~}}.

I have initiated a discussion at AE about your recent edits. The discussion may be found here. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 15:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

@Bishonen, Bonadea, RegentsPark, Vanamonde, 331dot and JBW: and others, I may not agree with what you did, but I will respect your right to do it. Give me a chance to learn more about Wikipedia edit in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Italawar (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't need to be unblocked to learn more about Wikipedia, as anyone can read Wikipedia and its policy pages. When you have constructive edits you wish to make, and can do so with the proper

original research, you can request unblock at that time. As this request does not do that, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2020 (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.

Block evasion

I see you have evaded your block by posting as an IP.[1] Of course that is not allowed, or blocks would be pointless. You, the person — the individual — are blocked, not merely this account. Don't evade the block again. Bishonen | tålk 14:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Why Block

@Vanamonde93, Bonadea, JBW, Bishonen, and RegentsPark: I think the reason behind my block is not Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, Can you justify your action? Italawar (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proxying

@Bishonen: Italawar seems to be trying to edit by proxy, and as such a warning about that, or revoking talk page access, may be in order. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh seriously. First block evasion with an IP and now this. I will revoke talkpage access. Thanks, Vanamonde93 and Bonadea. Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The article

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

AHINDA

?

You are blocked. You are not supposed to edit any page except this one, for the purpose of requesting unblock. You have done that once, above, but it wasn't a good request and it was declined. I suggest you post another, and this time do read WP:Guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 11:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@

AHINDA Italawar (talk

)`

Hello, Italawar, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username North8000, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created,

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, please don't send these messages to indefinitely blocked users. In this case, it certainly won't help the user's misconceptions about what it means to be blocked, see above. Bishonen | tålk 11:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: Thanks for the note. The page curation bot did it automatically when I AFd'd the article, but the listing does show when the creator is currently blocked so I could know and then delete those posts on their talk page. North8000 (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen, Bonadea, Ab207, Soman, I-82-I, and North8000:You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles#Legislative Assembly constituency names. 171.48.31.3 (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 Bishonen | tålk 08:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Operation Kamala is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Kamala until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]