User talk:Miyanky445

Welcome!

Hello, Miyanky445, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Oba (ruler) did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Lenny Marks (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Oba (ruler), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Lenny Marks (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edits

Hey! It seems that many of your edits have been reverted as they have not conformed to Wikipedia's policies. In particular, content on Wikipedia must be written in a neutral, encyclopedic, tone, and should include a citations to a reliable source. I would encourage you to review Wikipedia's policies on help:referencing and neutrality. If you have any questions, you can reach out at wp:The Teahouse, the forum for new editors. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2024 (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; read about 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.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:22, 30 October 2024 (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. Thank you. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your edits and behavior. The thread is Disruptive editing by Miyanky445. Thank you. Lenny Marks (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that if your behavior does not change drastically when the current block expires, that you are almost certain to be swiftly reblocked without an expiration date. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miyanky445. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]