User talk:Adinew56

Hi Adinew56! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Through which elevant source, did you come to the conclusion that AITC is a centre-right political party? Looks like you're not taking hard facts into your account. Dasjyotishka (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source already provided for the centre-right ideology. Moreover earlier a discussion took place on the talk page regarding this issue. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centrr right and left position depends on the policies of the party. Centre right would be wrong in line with present situation. During NDA times it was some what centre right. Torque 56774 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk page of AITC already discussion took place on this issue and consensus was reached. Moreover for centre right position scholarly source has been provided.--Adinew56 (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I respect your opinion and the sources. Actually the party constitution says that it follows principles of socialism. So its constitution and wikipedia description are contradictory.

https://aitcofficial.org/party-constitution/ Torque 56774 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Party constitution can say many things but ultimately that needs to be verified by third party reliable source. Or else it won't be considered. Read entire WP:RS and WP:V thoroughly.--Adinew56 (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source reliable?

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191848117.001.0001/acref-9780191848117-e-11 Torque 56774 (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks its not me who decides what source is appropriate. You need consensus to add those positions. For that go to talk page of AITC. I assume already consensus was reached on this matter. Please check talk page rather commenting on my talk page.--Adinew56 (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2021 (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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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.

Hello, I'm Bop34. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mamata Banerjee 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 your 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. βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 13:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Talk:Hindu nationalism. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate: Don't remove those template afterall those templates are related to this article.--Adinew56 (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please use categories that are only directly related. I have removed tangential categories that you included in the article on Emergency in India. Vikram Vincent 05:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Vikram Vincent thanks for further improvement. Cheers.--Adinew56 (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned for 3 months from all articles or discussions covered by the WP:ARBIPA topic area

You have been sanctioned for editing disruptively and for currently lacking the competence to engage this fraught topic area. Permanent link to ANI discussion where multiple problems were raised, but were failed to be understood by you.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at pia#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the 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. El_C 06:07, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: For god's sake don't do this to me. Please forgive me. I made a mistake and willing to cooperate with you guys. I apologize. Please please revert topic banned from the WP:ARBIPA topic area. Forgive me. From next time if you find any mistake then put sanctions against me. Forgive me. I apologize for my mistake. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adinew56, if you wish to appeal the sanction, you can follow the instructions in the above template. My honest advice, however, would be to not appeal it; 3 months is not that long. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: @Rosguill: @SpacemanSpiff: I am a Sockpuppetry of User:Kkm010. Please block my account and IP address indefinitely. Also do range block of the IP Address as I use dynamic IP address. Thanks--Adinew56 (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 07:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just leaving this here for posterity, this is a sock account for sure but I don't think the claim matches. Either way, this shouldn't be unblocked via regular unblock. —SpacemanSpiff 12:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]