User talk:Patnapp2

March 2021[edit]

Your recent edits to Lalitaditya Muktapida could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngryHarpy (talk • contribs)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Bal Thackeray, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 20:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

OK sorry wikipedia I appreciate now I am edit with discipline ok wikipedia please don't block my page now I am not give any threats to wikipedia but my all information is right but other people change it again and again thats why i am frustrat any give threats sorry wikipedia. Patnapp2 (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:How to cite your sources. Saying "Rajatarangini states Lalitaditya was a Kayastha" is not sufficient -- another person may claim "Rajatarangini says Lalitaditya was a Rajput", yet another may insist that "Rajatarangini says Lalitaditya was a Pashtun". You need to cite a reliable source that supports your claim (e.g. a history book with page number / quote). utcursch | talk 14:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But not a proof he is rajput or pasthun but only Rajatarangini mention that he war kayastha one an only i was i was try another proof i will give you soon ok thanks Patnapp2 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification[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 South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be smart I am India and I well know about India and Indian people don't teach what I do or what I don't do Patnapp2 (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, your knowledge should not be used for editing[edit]

Doug Weller talk 20:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock MichaelJoseph002.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if you continue to include unsupported and contested caste-related material into biography articles when the block expires, or if you create new accounts to do so, you will be blocked indefinitely.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Zachary Daiquiri. I noticed that you recently removed content from Ambashtha 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 your 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. Zachary Daiquiri (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ambashtha, 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. Zachary Daiquiri (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing in the topic area of castes and social groups despite a previous block. I could have topic banned you per WP:CASTE, but as this is the only topic you edit, it would effectively be the same as an indefinite block.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plz unblock next time no do this type of thing Patnapp2 (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]