Sorry about the revert. I made a mistake when I was looking at the revert, and I thought you were adding those weasel words, but you were in fact removing them. Thanks, and sorry. Nishkid64 ( talk) 17:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Nanakshahi calendar has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 21:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, it looks like you are spamming links to www.sikhitothemax.org. Can you please stop adding it to umpteen articles. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 14:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
STTM is a relevant resource for all those articles and it's a shame that you would remove that w/o verifying
you fail to realize that there are multiple spelling errors in the links that currently exist, the work from sttm is actually vetted by multiple reviewers and is open source - just search github for it
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 recently shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.
Your recent editing history at Tav-Prasad Savaiye 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. 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Sorry about the revert. I made a mistake when I was looking at the revert, and I thought you were adding those weasel words, but you were in fact removing them. Thanks, and sorry. Nishkid64 ( talk) 17:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Nanakshahi calendar has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 21:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, it looks like you are spamming links to www.sikhitothemax.org. Can you please stop adding it to umpteen articles. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 14:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
STTM is a relevant resource for all those articles and it's a shame that you would remove that w/o verifying
you fail to realize that there are multiple spelling errors in the links that currently exist, the work from sttm is actually vetted by multiple reviewers and is open source - just search github for it
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 recently shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.
Your recent editing history at Tav-Prasad Savaiye 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. 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.