User talk:Sai Krishna Kanakala

Hi sai krishna Pls add the content of Amaravati page in history section instead of primary section and I move the content to suitable and right place in page and also pls change back the infobox images to good view and add your images in history section only which it suites at your recently edited content to exact spot and follow according to wikipedia's policies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4070:205:8BA8:0:0:20D5:20AD (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Krishna Kanakala, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Sai Krishna Kanakala! 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 Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kakinada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coringa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajahmundry[edit]

Indic script[edit]

- Please do not add any Indic script, to any of our India related articles, as you did at Rajahmundry, as this contravenes WP:NOINDICSCRIPT - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placenames[edit]

Please stop changing the names of places in articles to different spellings to those used as our article titles, as you did at Rajahmundry. We use the WP:COMMONNAME in English for our articles, not the "official" names, so changing the spelling breaks wikilinks to those articles and is confusing to our readers - thank you - Arjayay (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Population[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Rajahmundry. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

March 2020[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rajahmundry. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. You were clearly asked to stop changing the names of places in articles to different spellings to those used as our article titles, above - Arjayay (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Vijayawada, you may be blocked from editing. You were clearly asked not to add any Indic script, to any of our India related articles, as this contravenes WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, above - Arjayay (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rajahmundry. - Arjayay (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Kurnool, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Arjayay (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 21[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kakinada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beach Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Vijayawada, you may be blocked from editing. Stop adding unnecessary wikilinks and redundant mention of Vijayawada being the second largest city. It is already mentioned in the lead. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Vijayawada, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". [1] this edit is absolutely NOT a minor edit. Please be more cautious when selecting that option. Ravensfire (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". You've continued to do this - it's deceptive, disruptive and at this point, just dumb. Stop it. Ravensfire (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Vijayawada. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kakinada. - Arjayay (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amaravati, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Remains (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Andhra Pradesh. - Arjayay (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Pradesh[edit]

Hello, I'm DonSpencer1. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 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. Please do not add too many citations and over-link words in the lead of the article. Thank you. Don Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 20:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You restored content that violates our policies on reliable sources, original research, and over-citing, please review the edit summaries before restoring content. Discuss any content issues on the talk page. Don Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 21:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Andhra Pradesh. If you continue to unnecessarily bold parts of the lead, add non-neutral language (e.g. "known for their long hair, tall stature, sweet language and mighty prowess"), and, generally, disregarding other edits' comments. Please work with your fellow editors to improve the article. Don Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 21:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Andhra Pradesh‎. SovalValtos (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for unresponsive editing, edit warring, disruptively ignoring other users' concerns after a block for the same behavior, refusing to discuss changes on the talk page of articles.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 2 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for editing the pages, but i didn't do any mistakes. I have edited every word with rightful citations and original verified links but i have been blocked and there is no expiry set for the unblocking of my account. pls unblock me as soon as possible

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) 09:30, 4 May 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.

When you make your next request, just click "edit" instead of "new section" which creates unnecessary section headers. Place your request in the larger edit window and not the smaller edit summary/section header box. If you are using a phone, you may find it easier to use the desktop version of Wikipedia in a browser, which will have full functionality. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 4 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for editing for some of the pages in wikipedia, but all i have done is just to edit with reliable sources and original citations and verified links. But i understood for which reasons i was blocked and i assure that I will not disrupt or cause damage to any of the pages or sections herewith and I will make useful contributions and edits with rightful citations and links and I promise thatSai Krishna Kanakala (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please be clearer. Please affirm that you will be responsive to the concerns of others. Please, also see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.

Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.

Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 09:50, 6 May 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for editing for some of the pages in wikipedia, but all i have done is just to edit with reliable sources and original citations and verified links. But i understood for which reasons i was blocked and i assure that I will not disrupt or cause damage to any of the pages or sections herewith and I will make useful contributions and edits with rightful citations and I affirm that I will be responsive to the concerns of others and I will not disrupt any more pages in wikipedia and I WILL stand by the policies of wikipedia. Plese unblock me

Decline reason:

Your inability to write a proper unblock and your inability to understand why you are blocked shows you aren't listening to us and that you lack sufficient competence to edit here. This is the end of the line. To prevent you wasting any more of our time, I am protecting this page for six months. That's the soonest you can apply under WP:SO, and only if you make zero edits during that time. Yamla (talk) 10:40, 7 May 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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.