User talk:Liveevil666999

October 2017

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Charodi (community), you removed content without adequately 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) 06:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion of sourced content

Can you please discuss at Talk:History of Mumbai, your reasons for removal of sourced information from the article? Simply labeling the content "questionable" or "obscure" does not suffice. Abecedare (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have been similarly deleting caste/community related sourced information from several other articles. Please stop, or else you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

Abecedare (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Your recent editing history at History of Mumbai 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. Abecedare (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gaud Saraswat Brahmin, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]