User talk:Kharari

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Kharari, 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 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 new contributors' help page, 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 help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kharari, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Kharari! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Hi, please have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:How to cite your sources: when you cite a book, please provide a page number. utcursch | talk 03:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you are changing sourced text with no justification, I'm not confident with your edits[edit]

Please use the article talk page now to explain your edits. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[edit]

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. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Doug Weller talk 08:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nanda Empire, you may be blocked from editing. Akrasia25 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dedhiya moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Dedhiya, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hitro talk 07:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chavda dynasty[edit]

Hello, Kharari,

You have created this AfD but without providing any reason why this article should be deleted. Please do so or this request to consider the deletion of Chavda dynasty will be closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

Kharari, are you familiar with the Good Article review process?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject assessments[edit]

Hi Kharari, thanks for joining the WikiProject India assessment team. I am not sure how long you have been doing assessments, but I notice that the assessment you have added here is wholly improper. Not only have you ignored the existing assessment for the article, but you have added a new assessment that is markedly different from the previous one in importance. If you want to change the ratings like that, you need to initiate a discussion on them talk page, and obtain WP:CONSENSUS.

I am also not confident that you have read through the guidelines given on the assessment page. If not, please do that now before you do any more assessments. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read it more than 10 time's@Kautilya3:

And I changed or insert other template of importance just because they are too old rating template — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharari (talk • contribs)

June 2019[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Thapar (surname). This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 14:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please note that Competence is required for editing Wikipedia, and your recent edits show a lack of it:

Improper assessment, including adding duplicate tags[1][2][3], misplacing assessment categories[4][5], falsely claiming an article to be a Featured one[6], and using assessment as a tool to promote your caste[7]
Proposing deletion without providing any reason at all: [8][9], and coming up with an invalid rationale when asked for one [10]
Incomprehensible English: [11][12][13][14]. Your claim that the articles Chaulukya dynasty and Chavda dynasty have "same information" makes me seriously doubt your command over the language.
Unsourced changes: [15][16]
Improper GA reviews [17][18]

If you intend to continue editing Wikipedia, please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines before making edits (e.g. read Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles before participating in a GA nomination). Also, if you're more comfortable with your native language, please contribute to Wikipedia in that language, such as Gujarati Wikipedia or Hindi Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 15:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Utcursch:Which caste I promoted? And which tag is duplicate ? In fact your promoting your caste and playing with ancestral records you think you're over smart know one can understand what you are doing chaulukiya dynasty chavda dynasty.

ARBIPA sanctions alert[edit]

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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3:

What is this what u mean by pakistan, afganistan?

Don't trying to over smart if do this next time I stop or banned Wikipedia from India understand. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharari (talk • contribs)

That is a statutory notice to inform you that discretionary sanctions are in effect for the areas you are editing ("India" in this case). You can ignore Pakistan and Afghanistan part if they don't concern you.

Once you have been informed that discretionary sanctions are in effect, any administrator can issue sanctions to you if they find it appropriate. So you need to make sure that you follow all the applicable policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Next time before adding any template make sure that is proper for that topic or not and then write any thing.

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).

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

Request reason:

because after first account I don't know how to request for unblock I created new one

Decline reason:

Well, now you know. And now you know you have been violating WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK and have destroyed any meaningful possibility your original account will be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2019 (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.