User talk:Bkr3da

Welcome!

Hello, Bkr3da, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Article 370 of the Constitution of India does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary article

Constitution line begin with temporary article 370;then why revierting back no more reverting back will result page would get locked for vandalism Bkr3da (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Article 370 of the Constitution of India. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes really??

Who disputed article 370 temporary ?? We need evidence do they have evidence to prove that ??? Only constitution is the evidence it's starts with world temporary itself .Some arguing doesn't mean that it's proof if you have solid proof let me know . Bkr3da (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page itself says: This was a "temporary provision" in that its applicability was intended to last till the formulation and adoption of the State's constitution.[21] It also says: Thus, the Article was considered to have become a permanent feature of the Indian constitution, as confirmed by various rulings of the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, the latest of which was in April 2018.[22][23][24][7]. You haven't even bothered to read the article before you decided to edit it and edit war about it. You have crossed WP:3RR now. If you don't self-revert your last edit, you are likely to get blocked. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2019 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bkr3da reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: ). Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

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 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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Article 370 of the Constitution of India. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]