User talk:Carolingian Knight

Carolingian Knight (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Carolingian Knight, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Bank Alfalah did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Kleuske (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Blablubbs. I noticed that in this edit to Nasreen Jalil, 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. Thank you. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please[edit]

Please stop adding random images to the bikini articles. These are encyclopedia articles, not your bikini picture book. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

Your recent editing history at Financial planning (business) 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that you consider investopedia.com a spam.

Carolingian Knight (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

jamapunji.pk is not spam.

Carolingian Knight (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it is. And it’s not an RS. But of course you know this since your only goal here is to promote SEO garbage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

read THE FOLLOWING:

https://jamapunji.pk/about-jamapunji

tHE ABOVE WEBSITE IS MAINTAINED BY "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan" AS AN INVESTOR EDUCATION TOOL.

WHATEVER.

REGARDS. Carolingian Knight (talk) 18:33, 18 September 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).

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

Request reason:

I will not revert any edits. Carolingian Knight (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 19 September 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.

I understand that I have been blocked for reverting edits by the admin. I will keep updating Wikipedia according to Wikipedia Policies and make useful contributions.

Carolingian Knight (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have been blocked for abuse of multiple accounts, you will have to begin your unblock request from your main account. —C.Fred (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]