User talk:Viveks369

December 2017

Hello, I'm MPS1992. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to K. A. Paul seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See also WP:RS. MPS1992 (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You removal of sourced content from KA Paul

Hi there, I have noticed you removed murder plot charges and subsequent arrest section from the article K. A. Paul. Please remember that you cannot remove properly sourced content from wikipedia. The source clearly says that KA Paul was arrested on those charges. It may be true that he was found to be innocent later on and those charges were dropped but that doesn't mean you remove content mentioning his arrest. If you have a source or sources that prove he (KA Paul) was innocent, please provide them and add that information to that section. You can say something like "KA Paul was found to be innocent later on and those charges were dropped". Please don't provide blogspots as sources. Wikipedia doesn't consider them (blogspots) as reliable sources. Please read WP:RS. Please write on my talk in case you have any questions. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on K. A. Paul. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Railfan23 (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to K. A. Paul has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This concerns the New Republic magazine cover Doug Weller talk 13:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on K. A. Paul. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 13:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.S Philbrick (Talk) 11:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

If you violate our copyright policy one more time, you will be blocked.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 9 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).

Viveks369 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

excuse me for the last time, next time will edit with proper knowledge. Thanks and Regards Viveks

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. Yamla (talk) 18:18, 9 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.

Dear Tampa, yes I understood the reason for blocking as I said I won't repeat it., do in needful for unblocking from editing. Viveks369 (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Doug and Yamla, I understood the reason for blocking., do plz unblock me and I make sure will safe guard Wikipedia rules. Thanks and Regards Viveks Viveks369 (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAB will help you understand how to write an unblock request. Nothing you've done here comes remotely close and you are in danger of losing access to this talk page if you continue wasting our time like this. --Yamla (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]