Hosta

Verify the date IAC formation date from third party published source. ThinkingYouth (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to India Against Corruption may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits! ThinkingYouth (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits uncle..!

ThinkingYouth (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The donor list link on Aam aadami party wiki page is working fine. Don't make flying claim before self check . Wikipedia is not a soapbox for making Vandalism grudges on personal agendas. ThinkingYouth (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at ThinkingYouth's talk page. Bubka42 (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AcorruptionfreeIndia! I've noticed that the currently-locked article India Against Corruption about a socio-political movement in India is largely maintained by you. Sections of it need major cleanup regarding their tone and style to improve its quality as a Wikipedia article. Please remember that your personal prejudices should never reflect in your contributions to Wikipedia (except in your choice of topics to work on, which is only natural). Non-neutral lines such as "IAC's current objective, as stated on its website, is for direct participatory democracy of citizens (without caring about leaders or big names) to rid the Greater Indian nation of corruption, wherever it is found by whatever means necessary" must be explicitly quoted even if it's extracted verbatim from a third-party source. This and other unencyclopaedic segments (like "a reluctant media, tired from last year’s breathless coverage, turned up in a tepid trickle" and "Nothing could disguise the thinning crowds from the cameras overhead") abound in the article. Please consider revising these once the edit-lock is lifted, by either adding quotes or rewriting in neutral tone. This has the potential to be a decent article, so will look forward to your continued good work on this and other pages. Thank you! Bubka42 (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why you changed/edited my talk page. ThinkingYouth (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at June 10 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution . In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection ThinkingYouth (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Where did you read that SOmnath Bharti is president of AAM AADMI PARTY??? Don't spread lies for some hidden agenda of yours. Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Somnath Bharti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President George Bush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot be sensible at Aam Aadmi Party then I suggest that you leave the article alone. You clearly have a POV and it appears to be affecting your judgement. At best, I suggest you confine yourself to raising concerns on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AcorruptionfreeIndia. You have new messages at Wwwhatsup's talk page.
Message added 20:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I thought you said at ANI last week that you were not going to edit the article itself any more? That may well have formed the basis for people deciding not to implement some sort of sanction. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am almost certain that you have edited using other accounts. There is no way that someone with your contribution history would know all of the acronyms etc that you deploy. Of course, there is not necessarily a problem with having used other accounts but since it is quite likely that a sockpuppet investigation will be opened if you continue in your current manner, it might be as well to declare such things now, if appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you take a look at Wikipedia:ARBIPA#Standard discretionary sanctions. Your disruption, which seems mostly to be based on conspiracy theories, is becoming a massive time-sink. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

While Sitush has already informally notified you of the sanctions above, as an uninvolved administrator, I am formally warning you that any disruptive editing on articles related to Afghanistan, India, or Pakistan can result in topic banning, blocking, or other remedies, with the sanction open to determination by any uninvolved administrator. Your edits on Talk:Aam Admi Party indicate a clear unwillingness to work within our core policies--specifically, WP:V and WP:OR. You're making demands that editors produce information that there is no need to produce, insisting that primary sources (or, specifically, the lack of certain primary sources) trumps the existence of reliable secondary sources, and generally badgering other editors in ways that are making collaborative editing there impossible. Now, if you really aren't understanding our policies, you're welcome to ask here or on my talk page. But if you continue to engage in tendentious editing, despite more than one editor having politely explained our policies, then you're going to be sanctioned. The exact sanction will depend on the circumstances, but it's likely to be a topic ban of some length on any edits relating to Indian politics. You can avoid this problem by slowing down, reading (or re-reading) our policies, and taking to heart the good faith advice that others are giving you. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]