User talk:Storritospeaks

June 2020

Hello, I'm 1997kB. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, NCERT textbook controversies, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Swarajya (magazine). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Template:Z187 Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 10:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Majavah was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Storritospeaks/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Storritospeaks/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– Majavah ^{talk · edits} 14:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Storritospeaks! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! – Majavah ^{talk · edits} 14:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, I'm HaeB. I noticed that you recently removed content from OpIndia 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. HaeB (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to OpIndia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 06:27, 8 June 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 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.

Template:Z33 — Newslinger talk 08:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Storritospeaks! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! — Newslinger talk 08:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to OpIndia, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a vandal

June 2020

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. Glen 11:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has never been easy to remove well-sourced information on this wiki. On top of that, your edit summaries are not adequate at all. "Wrong information", "wrong citations", "Heavily biased article" can never justify your removals, which simply look like whitewashing. Materialscientist (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement request (India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan)

I have requested arbitration enforcement in response to your disruptive editing in the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area. Please see WP:AE § Storritospeaks for details. — Newslinger talk 16:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere Apologies

I am very sorry for making an attempt to perform disruptive editing and engaging in an edit war. I apologize, and won't do it in future Apology, once again. Regards

I request all wikipedia editors, who requested a block on me to kindly unblock me. I am truly sorry for my behavior, I am new and was agitated at that time, I will ensure such behavior does not occur in future(if unblocked) Extremely sorry for rude behaviour, repetetive undoing of edits.|category=Please revert this block. I am very sorry! I will be civil in future.

Editing Wikipedia can often be contentious, especially when editing about issues related to politics. How will you handle being agitated in the future with regards to your edits? What will you do if your edits are reverted? What edits do you want to make in the future? 331dot (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before the block I was going to give you a topic ban from all pages and discussions (including your talk page) involving India per the sanctions alert above. What you could then do is spend three months editing in other areas, which would give you time to get experience in other areas and learn what's expected of editors. If you've been active for the next three months without serious problems, you could then appeal your ban. If you accept this I'll unblock you and make such a topic ban official. @331dot:, I think this would be a better solution, and if they can show active edits for 3 months with no problems, that's not a long time to be kept out of the area. Doug Weller talk 10:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Doug. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please combine your multiple requests into a single request. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal(Final): Accepeted 331Dot's conditions; Apologies for past behavior; Assurance for proper future behavior

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).

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

Request reason:

This is the combined unblock request, as asked by 331Dot. I apologize for my past behavior. I am willing to accept the unblock and ban conditons and assure taht such behavior will not be repated.

Decline reason:

You say that you accept Doug's (not mine, though I agree) conditions, but then try to negotiate them down. What's the rush? That's not acceptance, so I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 10 June 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.

It would be very nice of you, if instead of three month long Ban, it is there only for 2 months. I will be active during this entire time, and you may observe. One could think of it as a probationary period.

Unblock request: All conditions accepted, apologies for the negotiation

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Please review my block, I accept the conditions given by each of the administrators, who have left a comment on my talk page. I sincerely apologise for being a jerk and trying to negotiate.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please review my block, I accept the conditions given by each of the administrators, who have left a comment on my talk page. I sincerely apologise for being a jerk and trying to negotiate. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please review my block, I accept the conditions given by each of the administrators, who have left a comment on my talk page. I sincerely apologise for being a jerk and trying to negotiate. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please review my block, I accept the conditions given by each of the administrators, who have left a comment on my talk page. I sincerely apologise for being a jerk and trying to negotiate. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}