Orientls

Hello, Orientls, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! We're so glad you're here! Calypsomusic (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from M. S. Golwalkar  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Umayyad campaigns in India. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

Infobox changes require consensus. Please do not WP:edit war. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

== Disruptive editing ==

  Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Indo-Aryan_languages, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Axomika (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC) Blocked indefinitely for false accusations.Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Map creator refuses to engage in discussion despite evidence showing contrary. Also being subjected to racist attacks.. GMG^talk 16:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

That was a funny thread.[1] Orientls (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Mar4d (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are to be notified of this report--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Regional power does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. You need to enable the warning for omitting edit summary. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Mar4d (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

i have merged Opéra bouffon to Opera buffa as there was a merge tag see Talk:Opéra bouffon before reverting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:308F:7CE6:EF9A:8A98 (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Angus Maddison was a leading scholar and specialist on the economic history of GNP. Wikipedia depends on research of major scholars like him to provide reliable secondary sources that we summarize the OR rules applies NOT to scholars but only to Wiki editors who make new claims not supported by a reliable source. the rule = Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Rjensen (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

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 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 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. zzz (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

with these edits diff ahead, D4i4na has controversially inflated the casualty figures in the article, without consensus, he has have been reverted by me and per BRD you are supposed to make consensus instead of edit warring. [2] [3]. I have followed BRD here, instead of accusing me of Edit warring why don't you make arguments to explain the edits.

You are seen as tag teaming to revert the article to your preferred non consensus version. I suggest you to self revert and join the talk page discussion. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:47, 7 December 2018 (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. DBigXrayᗙ 11:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

(sent out exact copy to all AfD participants - apologize if you are aware) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews which you were involved in, is in discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 December. Input there is welcome.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you elaborate as to why you say Sikkim was not independent post-1946? I added that change to a few articles besides the two you reverted, but, as far as I know, that information is correct. Sikkim was independent, since it joined India in 1975. ARR8 (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sikkim was independent since 1861 too because it became British India's protectorate by the treaty of 1861, and at the time of independence India assumed those responsibilities. India signed a treaty with Sikkim's ruler that sustained Sikkim's protectorate status so the protectorate status in this sense was sustained since 1861 to 1975.  You should be providing sources for saying Sikkim became independent in 1947. Orientls (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see. I'll revert my other edits on this topic. Thanks for the info. ARR8 (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

As I've clearly mentioned in my edit, there's no legitimate source that states that the Marathas had won the war. So it needs citation. Secondly, the additional claims you've made along with it doesn't match the citations you've affixed. So you've not restored any sourced claim, but a misleading claim. The citations do not state that the "Marathas had quickly regained the lost territories." Furthermore, in that section you must only mention the outcome of the war which actually seems to be inconclusive, at the moment, and not what happened before or after it, which is irrelevant. Chippy pest (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2019 (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. Squatch347 (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Orientls, please see the final resolution of the dispute here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive400#User:Orientls reported by User:Squatch347 (Result: Protected the redirect). The result was to merge the article and protect it from disruptive editing. Squatch347 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well, first, let's stop with the slander of accusing me of being a sockmaster. The only accusation of being a sockmaster on my record was made by you, and rejected by the admin that did the investigation. If you review the closing comments you'll note that the adjudication was done because there has been no expansion of the article in a year, it remains a stub. Finally, your assessment of the positions is incorrect; 2 voted against the merge (you and desmay (RebeccaGreen labelled hers as a question and the IP was shown to be a sock of Falconfly)) and 5 for the merge (Otr500, myself, Aurornisxui, MarkAQuinn (not sure why you think he is a sock), Elmidae) Squatch347 (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Orientls. When accusing others of being socks, please be aware of WP:ASPERSIONS. Making a charge which has no basis may be viewed as a personal attack, which is blockable. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@EdJohnston: I am confident that you had planned to leave this note on talk page of Squatch347 who was indeed caught and blocked for socking which he will himself never accept and never accept that MarkAQuinn was a sock ("not sure why you think he is a sock") yet he continues to falsely refer this account with clean image as a sock.[4] If this is not the case then still, would you rectify this and post the warning on the correct talk page? Orientls (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I made a mistake in my placement of this note. But after review, the questions of sockpuppetry are more complex than I thought. From what was said in the AN3 report, it does appear that the Tabiti article was previously troubled by socks. But if you want to remove my notice from your talk page, you should do so. I am unclear on where Squatch347 accused you of being a sockmaster. I do see you claiming that Squatch347 used a sock here on 7 December, which was before he was blocked (in January 2020 due to the SPI case which you filed). If the charge that User:Tabiti is a sock hasn't been officially confirmed, then Squatch347 shouldn't keep making that charge. I will ask User:Krakkos why he put the suspected sockpuppet tag on User:Tabiti. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking care of that Pakistani troll.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi - a small piece of unsolicited advice: I agree with you that it was a weak closing, but the admin is clearly sensitive and does not seem to engage well; best course of action is to leave for six months and renominate. --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm MarkH21. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@MarkH21: fixed. Orientls (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Orientls, as you will already be aware given your post on my talk page [5], you have now reverted me twice two place highly similar content in two places within the lead of the article.

1. [6] "RV no improvement"
2. [7] "Undid revision 952614579 by Darouet (talk) makes no sense since they were admittedly censoring since december, take it to talk page per WP:BRD"

Both of your edit summaries acknowledge these are reverts. You should probably treat COVID19 articles as under 1RR, given community sanctions on this topic area, which I'll post below. -Darouet (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

-Darouet (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I really appreciate you initiated this AfD. I was planning to nominate it as well but you beat me to it. Looking forward to outcome. --Saqib (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Zara Kay is being targeted because she's a non-Muslim and they want to kill her her or shut her down. That guy who reported her account is a Tanzanian Muslim who wants to harm her and silence. Please don't delete her page. She's helped so many Exmuslims. Thanks Juhxj (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

This reversion of yours was clearly not reverting WP:VANDALISM. There may or may not be valid reasons for reverting it, but your edit summary was deceptive. Please be much more honest with your edit summaries. Toddst1 (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

We met at a bitter dispute spread over one talk, a handful of user talks and a couple of ANIs, not the best places to meet fellow editors. I regret my loss of cool, which I hope haven't damaged the possibility of you and I collaborating in future, on something. After all we are often interested in similar articles, and we all want to improve them to the best of our abilities. Maybe sometime we could have a beer together, or  Y tea. It's better than beer, you know. Apologising again for all the badblood. Peace. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

You cannot edit the article Ehsan Sehgal anymore as you and your team fall under legal risks as I read this news[8]. Please stay away from editing and stop sending others for that purpose. You are not here to decide who should be on Wikipedia and who not. As a rule, you are not allowed to edit when there is a legal threat. Ubaid Qundeel (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

--Zayeem ^(talk) 17:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Orientls. The examples you presented on the SPI appear to be unrelated. One, the trangabellam one is Kashmir related, while the second, the faizan sock one, is from the history of Bangladesh. Did you mean to post different diffs or am I missing something?--RegentsPark (comment) 17:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Beccaynr (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please remove or rewrite your comment [9] to focus on content and policy rather than attacking editors with which you disagree. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

[10] I hope you understand and will reconsider how you've been behaving. --Hipal (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is incorrect. During my most active year, I mostly saw you with your earlier username which was changed after some years. That is why I mainly happen to remember you with that username. Orientls (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explanation. Please don't do so again. Best to WP:FOC. --Hipal (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply