User talk:Surajcap

December 2007

Your recent edit to Direct Action Day (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Surajcap, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Doldrums (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Action Day

i have for the moment removed the material you've added to the Direct Action Day article as it needs to be substantially modified in order to fit in an encyclopaedic article. pls note that the contents of Wikipedia articles shld be reliably sourced and written in a neutral tone. Doldrums (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Bd banga.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Bd banga.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing.

Hi, i see that you used a blog as reference in the article Persecution of Hindus. This is just to bring to your notice that wikipedia do not see such self-published sources as reliable references. I have provided other sources in place of your reference in the above said article. I think you might also be interested in reading this essay. Happy editing. Regards. Arjun^codename024 16:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Kashmir, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kashmir. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. SBC-YPR (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the anon ip that added a large amount of text copied from a book, then I need to warn you about copyright violation problems. You cannot simply copy text off a book. If you re-insert that text, it will be removed, and continuous copyright violations will lead to bans. Hope you understand the rationale behind the revert. --Ragib (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you copypasted the text from this book. If you redo the copyvio, you will be blocked. --Ragib (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism

Your edit did not explain anything clearly, and mere addition of discrete links is insufficient to justify making changes that are clearly not reflected explicitly in a body of scholarship. Please read this to understand why you cannot, on Wikipedia, simply combine information from a series of links and arrive at a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of them. Further, as has been pointed out by another editor in this edit summary, the onus lies on you to prove that the links you have used are reliable sources fit for use on Wikipedia. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have still not explained why the sources you used should be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. I have initiated a discussion here. Please feel free to participate and explain your views. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits would require a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. I am having to undo every single recent edit you've made for POV and spamming. I am really considering reporting you. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. You may be unblocked if you promise to stop the behaviour - listed above - that brought about this block. Please use {{unblock|your text}} to do this. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Surajcap (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The websites mentioned are quite authentic as tally with most other online sources on the subject and Koran links and history sites are linked with each calims in them. Reposting some parts of article in other articles were due to similiarity in nature of those articles like West Bengal, Bengal & Bangladesh History is linked, likewise is Kashmir, Jammu & Kashmir and Kashmiri Pandits, etc

Decline reason:

No response to below query in two days. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

But you're adding the virtually identical text and WP:SOAP with non-reliable sources to multiple articles again and again. How is this beneficial editing? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses used by Surajcap to evade block

--Ragib (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of content

Please understand that until you negotiate an unblock at this account, any edits made by any sock puppets to any article will be immediately removed, and any images you upload will be deleted. You are blocked; you are not welcome to contribute to Wikipedia for so long as you remain blocked, under any username. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]