User talk:JamesJohn82

Welcome!

Hello, JamesJohn82, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! John of Reading (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello, I'm Andyjsmith. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to SpaceX have been undone because they 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. Andyjsmith (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok JamesJohn82 (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Links

Hi, James. It is not necessary to remove red links. Please have a look at this page. WP:RED Best wishes, Graham Beards (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can I create new page? JamesJohn82 (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you have a reliable source to use. You shouldn't create a blank page. Graham Beards (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir JamesJohn82 (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Prison Law

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 Prison Law requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01924036.2010.9678832. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. S Philbrick (Talk) 11:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's mean this not reliable source sir? JamesJohn82 (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means you must not copy your text from anywhere including websites unless it explicitly says can even for commercial purposes. You have to write everything in your own words. If you have been given permission to use text, you still have to say where you got it from. Wikipedia is very strict about respecting copyright. Graham Beards (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir, I understood 🙏 JamesJohn82 (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Validation des Acquis de l'Experience, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portfolio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, sir what should I do? JamesJohn82 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK

Please don't wikilink terms like high school, instrument, computer. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir 😊 JamesJohn82 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited My Little Hero, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public viewing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, is it not good or what's wrong in this? JamesJohn82 (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Chotu gang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Punjab Police

Neferefre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Administration

Norman Lowrey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Analog

Tarakeswar (community development block) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ATM

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dirkbb (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir, 😊 JamesJohn82 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in William M. Branham, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

I reverted your recent edits to William M. Branham. As a general practice you should avoid overlinking articles. In this case, because the article is already referring to a specific Christian preacher, it's not likely that linking to articles on God or Jesus Christ are going to improve understanding for the reader.

I also removed a link you added to Ronald Kidd, who is different from the Ronald Kydd mentioned in the article. Please be careful when creating links to individuals mentioned in articles. Although an individual might share a similar name (or even an identical name) with someone else who has their own Wikipedia article they may not be the same people. You should verify whether they are the same person before creating a link. VarjoGrAy Jay 03:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will take care of this criteria and term or policy of wikipedia. JamesJohn82 (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to correct three issues you made at faith healing and were marked as minor edits. Please be more careful, —Paleo Neonate – 11:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But, in my opinion I did just bit correction. If you have issues, so please provide me guide line of wikipedia that related with it. JamesJohn82 (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is my humble request to you. Please provide me dedicated link.🙏 JamesJohn82 (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to KYES-TV, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sir I will take care of wiki policies and guidelines.😊 May be I made mistake because still I'm leaning wikipedia. JamesJohn82 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DUPLINK

Hello. I wanted to inform you of this MOS guideline which advises against repeating links in article text. I have thus undid your edits to isotope because the links you added repeated links already present earlier in the lead. Links to relevant background terms always help, but duplicate links generally are not very helpful and create extra blue text. Just keep this in mind. ComplexRational (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. JamesJohn82 (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citing wikis

Please do not add citations to wikis on Wikipedia, as you did in this edit to Helios (spacecraft). Wikis are not considered reliable sources; see the section on user-generated content. Thtatithticth (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. JamesJohn82 (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guruvayur Temple‎

You changed "The temple (puja) routines are strictly followed" to "Puja at temple routines are strictly followed" which makes no sense. Could you please fix this? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry sir, you can fix this JamesJohn82 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article Kalyan Bulchand Advani ‎. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I tried to find out reliable source url or website, but I didn't got it, that's why I put this URL. I'm sure I will not do such activity next time, and will try to add authentic and reliable source.Thank you for your suggestions. JamesJohn82 (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just used the same mirror here. Now that you are aware this is a clearly unacceptable source, why are you still adding it? Kuru (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry sir, i am still confused little bit. I think i need to read again about again about reliable source. Sir can you tell me little bit more about reliable source? JamesJohn82 (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating reliable sources can be difficult at times, and subject to much debate. In this instance, it is very easy. The material was clearly copied from here. They even provide a link back to use: "The contents of this page are sourced from Wikipedia article." Obviously, we cannot source an article with a copy of itself. Does that make sense? Kuru (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, now I got it, I will do my best. A news website can be reliable source may be? JamesJohn82 (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, generally, any news site with sound editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking is good. Every country has a few "news" sites that are unacceptable (like tabloids, etc). Kuru (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir, is there DA (domain authority) and PA (Page authority) matters in a reliable source? Can we add that website, who has good DA PA as a wikipedia citation? because last time did this, that's why I'm asking, what others things most metters sir, can you tell me more brief about it. JamesJohn82 (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The general outline for news sources is here: WP:NEWSORG. If you really want to get into deails, there's a large list of common sources that goes into detail on why they are or are not acceptable at WP:RSP. Some get complex. For example: Newsweek, a large American magazine, was generally reliable before 2013 - after that, a new company took them over and they went crazy with poor editorial practices. It does get fuzzy, sorry.

As far as mirrors and other junk sources go, I keep a list of sources that I watch out for here. That might help you spot some of the really common mirrors, but there's just a lot of sites that copy us now and fail to make it clear.

Hope this helps a little. Kuru (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very thank you sir for sharing such knowledge, I got your point, and now I will try do my best.😊 JamesJohn82 (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Re: this, you can't copy content from the sources, you have to be able to summarise content in your own words. Changing a few words around doesn't mean that it's no longer a copyright violation; even close paraphrasing can qualify. Two other things: Wikipedia is a netural encyclopedia. We don't need to call him a "veteran". And people don't "pass away", they die. We don't use euphemistic language. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it sir JamesJohn82 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors, again

Again, here at Guskara you've added a link that very clearly gives credit to Wikipedia at the bottom of the page. Kuru (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sir please guide me about the problem , how do i prevent this JamesJohn82 (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again here. I'm really not sure how to help you more than I did in the section above. On the "triposo" link you just added, what do you think the giant 18-point font text at the bottom of that source that says "Source Wikipedia" means? How would you interpret that? Kuru (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry sir, actually I'm stil confused about wiki source and i don't know that much about wiki citation or source. I am still learning sir. But i will try, i will not do such mistake again JamesJohn82 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's disappointing - in that particular instance, the problem seems to be very, very obvious. In looking at some of your other recent additions, it appears you are just randomly adding sources to articles that do not actually support the claim. For example, here, here, here, and here. In each example, you've added a link to material that does not address the concern - it may talk about the topic in general, but it does not specifically address the concern of the maintenance tag. I'm sorry, but please stop removing maintenance templates until you have a better grasp of sourcing. Kuru (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sir, and very thank you for undoing my edits. I will try I will give my best, and i belive that one day I will become perfect sir.😊 JamesJohn82 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poor copyediting

Please don't remove problem templates without understanding and fixing the issue they describe. Your edit of moving a comma didn't address the issue there, and in fact made the paragraph even less correct. If you are not fluent in the English language, you're still welcome at Wikipedia, but I'd suggest focusing on adding original material and correcting factual mistakes, rather than copyediting articles. Thanks. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Got it sir JamesJohn82 (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poor copy-editing v2

Hi there, I see I'm not the first one to tell you this, but please refrain from attempting to copy-edit articles as long as your knowledge of the English language is insufficient to fully understand correct sentence structure. For example, in this edit you completely broke the sentence you changed. For the time being, it is a fairly safe assumption that whenever you encounter phrasing you're unfamiliar with, it is probably due to you not knowing the underlying rules, rather than it being a mistake, so I'd also like to suggest you stay away from tasks like this until you get more proficient.

On an unrelated note, why do you insist on calling everyone you reply to on this page "Sir"? You mostly won't know whether an editor is male or female anyway, and it's just entirely unnecessary in general. I know you mean well and only want to be polite, but if you want my advice on being a more competent English speaker, I say just drop that habit. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, "Sir" word is used for respect. It is doesn't matter whether the person is a male or a female. In our culture, at least, we use Sir to give someone respect when we don't know the person we are talking to. It is not used only for males. JamesJohn82 (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's okay then, but please do be careful with the copy-edits in the future. Take care! AngryHarpy‍^talk 06:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Republic Day (India). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Do not add irrelevant content on gods in an article on constitution and republic day. This is clearly written as a blog (see above). The whole site is unreliable also, seems a spiritual site [1]. Quote from About Us "Mounting the spiritual need SA’s presence would be expanding from devotees to the people in search of God." Totally unreliable. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it sir and I'm really sorry for my mistake JamesJohn82 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Looks like you haven't been posted a list of guidelines. I'll do that for ya. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, JamesJohn82! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Red links

Why did you remove the red link here? There is no problem having a red link in an article. In fact this man has an article in Russian Wikipedia, so I have been able to improve the encyclopedia by adding an {{Interlanguage link}} which shows that link. Did you decide for yourself that this Russian writer was not notable enough to have any chance of an article being written about him? You have been told above that red links in articles are quite OK. Please make sure that your edits actually improve the encyclopedia rather than damaging it. Thank you. PamD 11:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.. Got it JamesJohn82 (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ammunition Column

Hi, what was your intention with this edit? The link appears to have nothing to do with Canadians? The grammar needs sorting however I can assist with that. The other point is that the intention of Wikipedia is not really to point readers to websites with "here is a guide". Neils51 (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok got it JamesJohn82 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. K. Aggarwal (cardiologist)

Hello, if you remove content from an article like you did at K. K. Aggarwal (cardiologist) [2], you owe an explanation. Per WP:CRV:

When removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed. Unexplained removal of content is when the reason for the removal is not obvious, and is open to being promptly reverted.

Please explain at Talk:K._K._Aggarwal_(cardiologist) why you removed that content so that it can be discussed by you and your fellow editors. Thank you. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I removed content to protect the article from vandalism JamesJohn82 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JamesJohn82, how is this vandalism?

"In January 2021, a video of Aggarwal's wife scolding him because he didn't take her with him for the COVID-19 vaccination went viral."^[1]

It is reliably sourced, so it has been verified. There might be other arguments for excluding it, but it being vandalism does not appear to be a valid reason. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored (see WP:CENSOR). Please explain further how the content you removed is vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism) or provide another valid reason for its removal. Thank you.

By the, when you reply to a message on a talk page, it is standard practice to indent your reply one time more than the message to which you are replying. See Help:Talk_pages#Indentation for more information on indenting and WP:TPG for talk page guidance. Thank you. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry for my mistake 🙏 JamesJohn82 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we all make mistakes. Hopefully we learn from our mistakes (and even from others' mistakes). So, will you restore the removed content or shall I? Thank you. – 108.56.139.120 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Delhi doctor takes Covid-19 vaccine shot, angry wife says 'why couldn't you take me along'". Hindustan Times. 2021-01-28. Retrieved 2021-01-28.

Yes, you can restore the last version 😊 JamesJohn82 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan

You claimed that ‘there is no evidence of fasting giving spiritual benefits in the scripture of any religion.’ How does the citation support that? And where does it mention ‘Jannat’? —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 04:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

Doug Weller talk 19:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Please do not use unreliable sources such as https://news.jagatgururampalji.org and others. They are not WP:RS. Pachu Kannan (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, I noticed that you removed my message from this page. Please read Talk_page_guidelines specifically, the part about altering or deleting other people's posts even on your own talk page. I quoted the relevant part below:

"It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct others' spelling errors, grammar, etc. Doing so can be irritating. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page.

Striking out text (e.g., ~~...~~) constitutes a change in meaning. It should be done only by the user who wrote it, or as otherwise provided in this talk page guideline." Kenm v2 (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Links - V2

Hi, it appears you are removing red links from some pages. When removing a red link, please consider if having that page will be valuable or not. If you believe that the red link in question does not warrant its own article, only then remove the red link. Red links make it much easier to create new articles for those pages. Pages below may help you decide if a red link should removed or a page should be created.

Notability_(people), Notability

Disruptive or not

Hi James, I saw that you left a topic on my talk page saying I was being disruptive. Please note that all my edits were made to improve Wikipedia. I left detailed notes on each edit as well as some pointers on your talk page. You have been asked to stop making those edits by multiple users yet you continue to do so. I went through your edits and reverted the edits that I find unnecessary or damage the quality of said articles. Please read through some editing guidelines posted above by other users. Lastly, it is important to leave detailed notes on each edit and it will be less likely to be reverted. Kenm v2 (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Kenm v2 (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jamesjohn, I believe you are misusing the disruptive editing warning so I have deiced to create an incident report on admin notice board. Kenm v2 (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. RegentsPark (comment) 13:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok sir, sorry for my mistake JamesJohn82 (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about you

Hi JamesJohn82,

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Kenm v2 (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

I'm sorry to see you have resumed promoting the jagatguru site after the previous block for doing so, and after apologising for it. This edit continues the spamming of the site. You have been blocked for two weeks this time. The next block should be indefinite. You can request unblock by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 14:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

August 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A month after Bishonen's warning above, you yet again added a spam link to jagatgururampalji.org. Per Bishonen's statement in her previous block, this block is indefinite. I don't know about Bishonen, but personally I have no problem unblocking you if you can commit clearly to not adding any more links to jagatgururampalji.org or any affiliated sites. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't know about that. Saying "Sorry for my mistake", and then making the same "mistake" again after letting some time go by, is really not promising. But if you would like to unblock and then watch the user and definitely block indefinitely next time it happens, Tamzin, feel free. Bishonen | tålk 07:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

[1] "Delhi doctor takes Covid-19 vaccine shot, angry wife says 'why couldn't you take me along'". Hindustan Times. 2021-01-28. Retrieved 2021-01-28.

[1]