User talk:Jaideep thakur

March 22[edit]

You need to read wp:npa and wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir you have been deleting everything related to rula tula ram and demolishing his image by making edit on his page too , this is not fine

i have provided refrences u should not undo Jaideep thakur (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because a couple of sources mention him, whereas the leaders we have in the info box every source mentions, as said at talk. We cannot have everyone who ever commanded a unit. And no one is " demolishing his image", as (per my previous sentence) he does not really have one. He was a minor local leader, not one of the major national ones. This has been explained to you at talk. So lay of the PA's Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to please check martyrs day in this documents and his date of birth before making this statement

https://csharyana.gov.in/WriteReadData/Notifications-&-Orders/General-Services-II/calendar%20year%202022.pdf

This is latest holidays list , please check for 23 september Jaideep thakur (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The place for this is the article talk page, and you have been told what a number of experienced editors think. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note you are actually passsed wp:3RR, so technically you are now in violation of it. But you have only just been warned. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also you need to read wp:spa. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Classic WP:POINTY editing, edit warring and sockpuppetry by User: Jaideep thakur. Thank you. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for personal attacks (diff). Also WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:POINT, WP:DE, etc. 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 ~~~~}}. El_C 12:04, 8 April 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Others involved in edit wars should also be blcoked Jaideep thakur (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Blocked for adding text with refrences and most of the users agreed on talk page Jaideep thakur (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2022 (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. Tiderolls 12:26, 8 April 2022 (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.

That won't be enough to get you unblocked, as you haven't indicated that you understand the reasons for the block, nor have you promised that it won't be happening again. Therefore, your unblock request will be declined. I'd suggest that you take a week off editing to go and read the policies and guidelines.Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 12:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there were objections on the talk page, and all of the users who agreed appear to have been socks (see below). Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block set not to expire[edit]

See SPI. El_C 12:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaideep thakur. 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.

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 ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I just reverted the edit in which you added an unblock request. I would not normally do that, as the blocking administrator, but your addition was improperly formatted because you nested it inside an existing (declined) unblock request; had that been the only problem, I would simply have moved it to another location and left it to another administrator to review, but it was also inadequate in that it completely failed to address the reason for the block, and so it would have been a waste of time for another admin to look at it. You are currently blocked for abusively using multiple accounts: any unblock request you make will need to address that. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]