Kamalyesh

November 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sanskrit. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been 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 notice boards.
• 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Sanskrit.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

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:Kamalyesh reported by User:Ammarpad (Result: ). Thank you. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Swarm ♠ 08:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understood, I was just making changes in established pages without providing proper context-why I thought those changes were justified- and I also understood that supposing I were correct, the changes I made should also have reflected in the structure(I can not change the text of a link only, or title of page only), with emphais on, there should be proper context and citation. Moreover, if I want to change/add something, I should first confer with at least one user, whom had contributed to the page, and check if everything I have is in order. I am sorry for causing inconvenience, user Ammarpad, user Swarm.
And as pointed out by user 331dot, I will communicate with the other editor-who removed any of my edits- ask and resolve why I should or should not change the content as I did. And if I could satisfy the user with my reasoning, only then I will make the same change. Otherwise, I will refrain from the same change again, unless I have convincing arguments for the changes, which I will state with the changes.
To user Yamla, what I meant was - for first edit, if I have convincing arguments, I will state them with my edits. But if some other user disagrees, I will not "edit war" with the user, instead, I would like to contact the user, and discuss with the user. As I am supposed to convince other users why I find changes are necessary, they should also state specifically how my changes are either unnecessary, or "destructive".
To general users, you must see what you see being simple thing, others may not.
I could not understand what "destructions" I was causing at first. But what I imagine they were is, by changing the title of the page, I am also changing the other links' destinations, which direct to the page. If this was the "destruction" my editing was causing, I understand now. If not, please specify "why".
Kamalyesh (talk) 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No. "Convincing arguments" is insufficient. I'm glad you plan to discuss your changes, but this does not convince me you'll avoid all edit wars in the future. Instead, it convinces me you will engage in edit wars when you believe your arguments are convincing. Yamla (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2018 (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.

You don't really address your edit warring. If another editor removes one of your edits, what is the proper way to respond? 331dot (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)