User talk:Sadaryohan

Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Khandayat, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Khandayat. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Karan (caste), you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Karan (caste) was changed by Sadaryohan (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.872557 on 2016-09-13T06:14:12+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Khandayat. Jim1138 (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. See Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:footnotes. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have just added a source that says at its top "THIS ONE HAS BEEN COPIED FROM WIKIPEDIA FOR READY REFERENCE BY OUR MEMBERS". Please see WP:CIRCULAR - you are using Wikipedia to verify a Wikipedia article. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, please stop adding stuff to the article. You would be better first asking at Talk:Khandayat whether a source is ok to use. If you carry on effectively experimenting on the article itself then you are likely to find yourself blocked from contributing. For the record, your last source is indeed published on Academia.edu but that means nothing much: anyone can publish stuff there. What we need is info from books, academic journals etc, not self-published works. Take a read of the information at WP:RS and then link to any sources you want at the article talk page - wait for someone to comment on whether they're ok before actually using them. Hope this helps because I realise you must be getting frustrated now. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Khandayat 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 article's 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. Sitush (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Khandayat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suryavanshi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Asia We invite you to join WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge, a project dedicated to improving Asia-related articles on Wikipedia. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Asia-related articles. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the participants.If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other participants.

Pratyush (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sadaryohan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked indefinitely, what have I done for this block. Also there is a category of sock puppet attached to my user page. Why? This is ridiculous

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; you gave no reason to consider unblocking. You are blocked because you are confirmed to be using sockpuppets in violation of WP:SOCK. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sadaryohan. Yamla (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2016 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

(User:Yamla Again what I have been accused of sock puppetry? I have not used this account or any accounts for vandalism or for false illusions as i have read in that sock puppet page. This is absurd. Please do remove this block Sadaryohan (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

 Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:25, 8 December 2016 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

User:DoRD Could you please specify where I have abused, or created illusion of support, other than just editing with verifiable sources. This is not a reason for block. For all my edits with the accounts I have provided credible sources. This is really confusing. Please do remove this block. Thank you Sadaryohan (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The user interaction tool shows overlapping edits from your three known accounts on two different pages - in one case within 7 days of each other, and in the other case within 1 day. In the case of Tarek Fatah, you used one account to reinstate a reverted edit made by another account.

More generally, you have used all three accounts to edit in the same subject areas without making their connections clear. Thus you made it appear that three different people were editing the same pages and subject areas over the same timescale, and that constitutes deceptive misuse of alternative accounts.

If you wish to be unblocked, I think a good first move would be to confirm all of the accounts you have used and agree to only use one account in future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2016 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

User: Boing! said Zebedee, Thank you for your response. Yes I had used accounts, but not for vandalism or creating false support under the pretext of creating falsehood. All my edits have been well cited, and I had extensively used references. Generally I thought this would be allowed under wikipedia rules unless it was the case of vandalism or deception. My intent wasn't any of it. I want to provide factual unbiased commentary to various issue of topics, hence used different accounts (Grandioseallen&Kashmiriatjhellum). Regardless if the intent being shown was deceptive, I completely assure that I will not the use the other accounts in the future. My main account, which is SadarYohan will be the only one used in Wikipedia for the future. Thank you and I hope this indefinite unblock is reviewed and removed. Sadaryohan (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You used your different accounts to edit-war on the same template in an attempt at, yes, creating false support (or possibly avoiding the consequences of your edit-warring by appearing to be multiple people). We do not care whether you think the end justifies the means; using deceit in pursuit of your goals is not acceptable. Huon (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2016 (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.

Two checkusers (that is, users with access to the technical details to determine this) have confirmed you've used multiple accounts. Your most recent unblock doesn't address this at all. I strongly urge you remove your current unblock request and consider how to move forward, knowing that we know you've abused multiple accounts. You are in danger of having your talk page access revoked based on your current approach. --Yamla (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yamla with due respect, how have I abused it. there is nothing wrong with using multiple accounts unless it is falsely supporting someone or vandalizing pages. I have edited and referenced my edits (based on the sock puppetry page). I have not insulted anyone, nor have I created any edits without due discussion. I have never used any x-rated material or vandalize any work, only edited with using citations. I have clearly cited my edits. Hence, what would be my next procedure for unblocking or further helping Wikipedia on an informative manner. Thank you Sadaryohan (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kshatriya odia. Since you had some involvement with the Kshatriya odia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sitush (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Khandayat dynasties and states has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

None of the sources mention that these were Khandayat dynasties / states. Creator blocked for sockpuppetry.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article 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. utcursch | talk 23:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]