User talk:Harmanprtjhj

Plagiarism?

Diannaa left a note on the IP's talk page saying the source for content in those edits was a Wikipedia mirror from 2015. That would not be plagiarism. Is this the same content?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim Thanks for the message. That "Wikipedia mirror" had also plagiarized the source. I have provided details on IP's talk page. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Toofan Singh

Hello! Your submission of Toofan Singh at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It's been three weeks since the your most recent response at the nomination (and nearly two since the above post). Please return to the nomination within the next seven days, if you wish to continue pursuing it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a final call for progress. On top of everything, the article is too short to qualify for DYK. Please begin work before the end of the weekend if you wish to continue pursuing the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• Template:Did you know nominations/Toofan Singh has been marked for closure: if you still wish to pursue the nomination, please respond immediately. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) BlueMoonset, Narutolovehinata5 This was a piece of puffery that fails WP:NSOLDIER wonder how it escaped AfD so far. I am nominating it for AfD. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Toofan Singh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Toofan Singh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toofan Singh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DBigXrayᗙ 06:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Your recent editing history at Khalistan movement 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 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Posting the warning template for procedural reasons. DBigXrayᗙ 05:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• You have already been warned. your edits have been reverted per WP:CENSOR and disruptive edit, User:Stormbird has explained his edits well and no evidence was produced against these edits. you revert once again and you will be reported for blatant edit warring. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Golden Age of India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decimal system (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) 10:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

JSB section - Politics

Hi Harmanprtjhj, we are still working on the Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale page, to give you a brief update:

• I have posted a version of the Politics section edit in my Sandbox, for over two weeks now, where it can be reviewed if you wish to participate.
• It is meant to replace sections 3 and 3.1.

Leave any questions or comments at the end of this section, and if you agree with the new version, please leave a brief comment stating your approval, to demonstrate consensus. So far two users have stated their approval, and none have stated disapproval. Thanks, Sapedder (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Harmanprtjhj: Change of plans, if you're still inclined to take part: the discussion has moved here if you would like to weigh in and possibly state agreement with the proposed edits. Comments are after every proposed section. The discussion fortunately seems to have gotten a second wind with the help of another admin and other users, so perhaps this round will have conclusive results. Thanks, Sapedder (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)