User talk:Truthfindervert

About Makran Sultnate

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Makran Sultnate a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Makran Sultanate. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Uhai (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move pages unless you are going to be extremely careful and double check the destination as this was a mess caused by an easily-avoidable typo. Uhai (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an Admin.

I'm removing the word from your user page. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions on caste articles

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Ekdalian (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Sikh Empire, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Ekdalian (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Dasaundha Singh, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ekdalian (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Duleep Singh, you may be blocked from editing. Ekdalian (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Sher Singh, you may be blocked from editing. Ekdalian (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Nau Nihal Singh. Ekdalian (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truthfindervert! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. I haven't checked them all, but you are making changes in meaning and yet marking your edits as minor, which is not allowed. Doug Weller talk 08:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

I didn't understand your edit summary at this revert. Can you clarify your reason? Which changes did you not like, and why? Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're on and not replying, I'll go ahead and re-do the edit. If there's something in it that seems wrong, please just fix that part instead of reverting again. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 16:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Your edit to Rajaram of Sinsini 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. RegentsPark (comment) 17:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dalal (name), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Indian and Gujarati. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dhillon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pannu, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Indian and Punjabi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dynasties of the Jats has been nominated for renaming

Category:Dynasties of the Jats has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahluwalia (caste)

Why did you move Ahluwalia (caste) to draftspace again? As I noted in my edit summary, "articles older than 90 days should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD, per WP:DRAFTIFY." Please explain yourself. – bradv 18:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal but that’s the only way you should use this talk page.

Doug Weller talk 19:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing for False abduction blame Accused today

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).

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

Request reason:

"I apologize for any confusion or distress caused by the accusations of sockpuppetry against my Admin Handle Truthfindervert on the Wikipedia platform. Note: "I am previously restricted from editing on Simple Wikipedia; however ,till today this does not affect my ability to use my global account for editing on other Wikimedia projects unfortunately I got abducted for Global Wikipedia without any violent background check

Upon review, it has been determined that Truthfindervert has not been formerly warned or partially banned on Simple Wikipedia. We regret any misunderstanding that may have arisen and will ensure that all users are treated fairly and with respect in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Thank you for your understanding."Furtherly I want to assure I dont want to harm any element subjected with Wikiepdia policy

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. – bradv 19:51, 16 July 2024 (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.

Honesty is Best Policy,Today Onward

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).

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

Request reason:

From today onward I condemn any kind of Suspicious intervention and avoid using multiple account prior to community policy and define toy follow the fundamental principles of Wikipedia guideline, to ensure my condolence 'From all my kind hearted word, I regressively avoid this hypothetical misbehaviour I want to clear this is my opportunity to address my previous use of multiple accounts and express my understanding of Wikipedia’s strict policies on Sockpuppetry. I now fully recognize that using multiple accounts to deceive or influence discussions undermines the transparency and collaborative spirit that are foundational to our User friendly community and our fallow member of this organisation. My Block is No Longer Necessary Because , I acknowledge my previous mistakes and have since immersed myself in Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly on sockpuppetry, neutrality, and verifiability. My intent is to contribute positively, with well-researched, properly sourced content. I’m committed to transparency, collaboration, and adhering strictly to Wikipedia’s principles. I take full responsibility for my past actions and request a reinstate of my block, confident that I can now contribute constructively and in line with community standards. Your obediently Truthfindervert

Decline reason:

I can think of several reasons why this gobbldeygook unblock request obviously has to be declined, but I'll give you just one. You are still using sockpuppets. JBW (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2024 (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.

Truthfindervert (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try again in your words rather than echoing LLM — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 16:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but explicitly I wont some extra tone to emphasise my word conveniently thats the real matter!@DaxServer Truthfindervert (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Jat states

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 Category:Jat states requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 4#Caste based princely state categories]]. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Gotitbro (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jat states has been nominated for deletion

Category:Jat states has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What i learned from wikipedia *Simple word

Without getting any further delay i want to broke my silence its been more than 6 month or more when i got the strange message from @Ivanvector that you are no longer to buckle up with your wikipedia affair as their off course theirs an backend support of @MathXplore but the worse part it was originally started back to the Simple Wikipedia which is generically an different encyclopaedic platform whereas out of nowhere I get blocked on the global platform which is internal failure of the check user who dont give me a warning or either try to complaint over this mischievous issue which quest three layer of message to warn user for prophesying its bad consequence but still agitatedly i am asking wheres my fault in this English pedia and how this even make a sense

Truthfindervert (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can i receive any understandable acknowledgment, where was my fault? yeah so why i got blocked if their nothing like this happened on englishpedia because as far i know, i dont get any message which still a topic of concern

thanks and regard for your support

@MathXplore @Ivanvector Truthfindervert (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its my pleasure to see you guys@MathXplore & @Liz and you my friend @Ivanvector and just humbling before requesting for an unblock request hopefully i got injustice for every single word which i endorsing right now thanks again Truthfindervert (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]