User talk:2601:83:8080:23F0:CD4F:BB8A:D460:9E62

May 2021

Hello, I'm Allthefoxes. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to 1998 Coimbatore bombings—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 12:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

November 2021

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - SUN EYE 1 03:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Vijay Sethupathi, you may be blocked from editing. - SUN EYE 1 09:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

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from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Vijay Sethupathi. - SUN EYE 1 14:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - SUN EYE 1 14:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Vijay Sethupathi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - SUN EYE 1 14:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Vijay Sethupathi. Robertjamal12 (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Stop adding your personal analysis

See WP:OR, the content you are adding in Vijay Sethupathi is a statement by the attacker + some of your opinions. It cannot be considered as a fact. - SUN EYE 1 14:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Once Iam unblocked, I will just say, Vijay Sethupathi was attacked and I will cite the source.

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. - SUN EYE 1 15:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Notification: Blocked

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).

2601:83:8080:23F0:CD4F:BB8A:D460:9E62 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I should not have been blocked. I cited sources for my edit. It is not a personal opinion and is based on facts

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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

---