User talk:Jenishc

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rishabhanatha. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been 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 notice boards.
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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.

Please do not insert unsourced or non-WP:RS and fringe content in wikipedia articles. Please do read the content guidelines per MOS and for GA-level articles. Do not ignore the comments or concerns on the talk page, and please discuss on the talk page. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

===> All the edits that were made were constructive and thoroughly justified, until you thoughtlessly reverted them. Jenishc (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Rishabhanatha shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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.

Please do not repeatedly remove content that meets MOS and content guidelines in GA quality articles. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war issued because you have been wantonly sabotaging my efforts. I'd also suggest you stop threatening other wikipedia editors, it wont work. Jenishc (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 14:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring.

The thread is here. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You've been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to violating the Three revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 00:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended your block to two weeks due to block evasion. El_C 06:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SEE TALK PAGE on Age of Rishabhanatha according to Jain Traditions. All of you are acting in an irresponsible and sadistic manner. The mentioned source gives the required details but none of you are even remotely *willing* to look into it and only want to enforce your particular viewpoints. As for the block, you can block me for 2 years if you want to exercise your power, but it wont help or change anything.

It doesn't matter if you're right on the content. We have rules and you have to adhere to them like everyone else. El_C 06:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think *everyone* has to adhere to the rules equally. However, some editors seem to be more equal than the others based on the way things have been moving. Further, the reason you blocked me was completely unjust, so you cannot expect me to bear even an iota of it, i wont.

The reason I blocked you was because you broke the rules—you will be restricted from editing the article indefinitely if you fail to adhere to em. El_C 02:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

All you had to do was wait one day. El_C 02:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha LOL. Keep playing these petty games if it makes you happy. It wont stop me. -Jenishc