User talk:AEku482

May 2020

Hello, I'm Hillelfrei. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Bhishma seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hillelfrei ^talk 20:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Arjuna did not defeat the Kuru Army single-handedly.[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bhishma. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. xRENEGADEx 21:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XRENEGADEx (talk • contribs)

June 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Abhimanyu, you may be blocked from editing. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 14:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing July 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing as you did it in article Hindu mythological wars. If you continue to edit in such a manner which oppose the real content, you may be blocked from editing. Fire star on heat (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kurukshetra war. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Fire star on heat (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello, I'm Fire star on heat. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Astra (weapon), 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. Fire star on heat (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Kartavirya Arjuna, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Fire star on heat (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior class or level of Bhishma

You have shown lot of interest on character Bhishma. From your edits both in articles and on talk pages, it is clear that you are fan of Bhishma. Here is evidence: [1] and [2]. 1st seems to be wrong but 2nd one is correct. It's not wrong and not a problem but the way you are editing is not right way. Different editors have different favourites but they shouldn't edit in a wrong manner and change original content. This is purely termed as vandalism and regarded as disruptive editing. However Bhishma is not Atimaharathi as per your claim but he is Maharathi and equal to 4 Maharathis. Go through this to have a better understanding [3] and please understand reality. I noticed that you raised this discussion already. So please don't raise same discussion again and again. Go through above mentioned link thoroughly and understand. I hope you won't repeat this next time again. Also please be careful in editing. Persistent vandalism might lead to loss of editing privileges. Thank you and have a nice day. Fire star on heat (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Virata Parva. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Fire star on heat (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Uttara (Mahabharata), 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. Jessicapierce (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Syamantaka, 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. Jessicapierce (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Brahmashirsha astra, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be more clear: I think you are trying to improve these articles, but you need to slow down and learn more about what Wikipedia expects, before adding anything else. Please include sources for your claims, and please use the Preview function to make sure you are leaving articles in a readable state. Thank you Jessicapierce (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Hindu mythological wars, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. You have been already warned on same criteria for adding your own research in artcile Virata Parva. Please add proper citations before you edit article. It is better to put your own views in article's talk page with reliable sources and proper citations. Fire star on heat (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit user page content as you did in my own user page[4]. Instead add your views either on my talk page or in article's talk page. Thank you and have a nice day. Fire star on heat (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you not to change content on my user page. Again you did this [5] Instead add discussion on my talk page. Please follow wikipedia policies correctly. Hope you won't add or change content of my user page. For any queries use talk pages not user pages. It seems that you are very new and doesn't have prior knowledge about the ways to talk with fellow users. From next time, don't do that. Thank you and have a nice day. Fire star on heat (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that I'm fan of Arjun or Arjuna as you mentioned in this [6]. Your assumption is wrong. I need not prove that but I'm still doing it. Have a look at this one. [7] This was one of my edit in which I clearly mentioned that Arjuna didn't possess Narayanastra. This is much enough to prove that I'm not fan of Arjuna. Nor I'm against that character. I only add correct information. There's nothing personal or favourable to a character. So I warn you to be careful while pointing fellow users and claiming that they are not genuine. But, from your edits it is very clear that you are fan of Bhishma and your editing seems to be like fan based editing. I noticed that you have been warned by many users for disruptive editing and vandalism. Please be careful. Have a nice day. Fire star on heat (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: don't post on other people's userpages

User:Fire star on heat has asked you to stop posting on their userpage, but you have continued to do so over and over again. Userpages are not for discussion; that's what user talkpages are for. Please stop or you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 18:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC). I am sorry bishoshen and I am responding to you so please unblock me[reply]

OK. You have been unblocked. But I'm sorry to see you have simply removed all the warnings and advice you have received on this page. There was a lot of useful information there for you. I hope will at least respond to future posts here, and engage with other people. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Bishonen | tålk 18:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

September 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hindu mythological wars. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Fire star on heat (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When shri krishna himself said that arjuna is of no match when bhishma uses all his powers and weapons, how can arjuna be a better archer than bhishma. In Virata war, arjuna did defeat bhishma by injuring his hands but bhishma did not use his entire strength and power. On the second day of Kurukshetra, Bhishma injure arjuna with ordinary arrows. Hence it is proved he is maharathi off maharathis and is an atimaharathi not a person equal to just 4 maharathis. He defeated Abhimanyu on the 1st day itself without using his complete strength in a duel. That too in minutes. yes Arjuna killed 3 crore demons in a single shot but Bhishma could stop the flow of the rivers by using one arrows, it would become thousands of arrows and make a bridge out of those. When Arjuna used Sammohana astra, Bhishma could have used Prajna astra in mid air itself and destroy Arjuna's sammohana astra. Or he could have used prashwapastra immediately when he saw arjuna on the battle fied itself which would put Arjuna to sleep and nobody except Bhishma possessed this weapon.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hindu mythological wars, you may be blocked from editing. Please don't edit as per your own wish. Instead add your own views in artcile talk page. Provide some reliable sources and citations. Fire star on heat (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC) first of all, when did I do that? https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Kunti[reply]

Kanra had greater knowledge of celestial weapons that Arjuna did not know how to encounter them. If Arjuna used is celestial weapons such as Naagastra and Rudrastra over and over again, Arjuna would have died.

Bhishma possessed all the astras including pashupatastra because shiva taught Pashupatastra to Parashurama and he taught it to Bhishma.

October 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for failure to respond to requests to avoid original research and to only do properly sourced 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: <! -- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->Why have I been blocked? I only named the Pandavas as Maharathas the mighty car-warriors. First of all, Arjuna is an Atimaharathi but Bhishma could kill the panda

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here I am extremely sorry for editing the oages without the citation of the sources and from here on< I will cite the sources. https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/40907/did-arjuna-really-win-against-the-kauravas-all-alone-in-virata-kingdom-battle/40926#40926Also ~~~~}}

. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block review. I tried to fix your unblock request, but it's very difficult, since I suppose you don't want the repetitions in there. And when I was almost done, I got an edit conflict. I'm leaving it as it is. I have declined your request, as it does not address the reasons given for the block. You really need to read the Guide to appealing blocks before you make another request, and to keep your text much more concise and relevant. And please post the appeal below the block template, not inside it. Bishonen | tålk 22:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for failure to respond to requests to avoid original research and to only do properly sourced 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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 5 October 2020 (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).

AEku482 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why have I been blocked? Please unblock me. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead and from now on, my conduct will not be like that. I will prove citations to the sources. Also, I read and understand WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR. I took a lot of time to read it and I understand it. I have been blocked for months. If you unblock me, I will cite sources to my edits. I will write properly sourced edits.

Yamla (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request shows you haven't read your block message or the messages above, and that you don't understand WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR. Please take the time to read all of these. Yamla (talk) 10:20, 16 October 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.

UNBLOCK ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

March 2021

UTRS decline

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. ( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=The block is no longer necessarily. I have been blocked for months and I realize that I should and when I am unblocked, I will cite sources to my edits. Only and only and only if there are evidence and that my edits are accurate, then only will I edit on Wikipedia. I realize that Wikipedia is a big platform where correct information has to be written and will cite sources to edits. I beg you to unblock me. I learnt my lesson. The block is no longer necessary. From now on, I will cite sources for my edits. I have failed to respond to requests and from now on I will respond to requests, I will cite sources using original sources and cite the sources and cite the websites. I am extremely sorry for not doing that but I will do it.~~~~}}.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please see UTRS appeal #41777

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS

What do you mean by "private sources"? "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." Please relate this statement to your "private sources" and how you will edit moving forward. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]