User talk:Michaellko

Welcome!

Hello, Michaellko, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Bhumihar, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Sitush (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Bhumihar. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 19:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not replace sourced material with statements that differ in outlook or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Bhumihar. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.

You cannot just replace reliably sourced material with other stuff. In particular, you are replacing it with material from a source that looks to be distinctly suspect. I suggest that you discuss your edits on the article talk page. Sitush (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  —SpacemanSpiff 20:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Help me!

Dear SpacemanSpiff, I don't know for what reason you blocked my editing rights. However as an honest contributor to wikikpedia I always try to disseminate true information thats why I edited the article BHUMIHAR which is being flooded by a prejudiced facts by aset of people and ID SITUSH & Utcursch are two of them. They are regularly editing this article with imaginary books and references and insulting BHUMIHARS. In such a situation if you feel that my point is not justified Ia have nothing to say. But in such situation your credentials will become full of doubt and no body will rely on wiki article.

Please help me with... REGARDS MICHEALLKO Michaellko (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You were asked not to edit ware (see the notice above) and that it would result in being blocked, yet you persisted. As far as the content goes, when there's a disagreement you have to discuss this on the talk page, which you did not do. —SpacemanSpiff 03:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Upendra Rai

Hello Michaellko,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Upendra Rai for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. SwisterTwister talk 04:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Upendra Rai

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Upendra Rai, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself how editing works here before taking any major actors as some options need better understanding before being using. If you need help, please consult the links above as they serve some of the basic needs. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for visiting my favorite page and making it error-less. Yavarai (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michaellko, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

_pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)