Samsam111

June 2015

Hello, I'm Human3015. Your recent edit to the page List of Indian cities by GDP (per capita) appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Human3015 knock knock • 11:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Samsam111! 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! Human3015 knock knock • 11:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry 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 Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

please follow Lulu group official website don't follow design international as there are lot of changes comming after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshpalode007 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

removal of content without adequate explaination

Hello, I noticed you removed an entire section in an article list of tallest buildings in the Indian subcontinent without adequately explaining why. It would be useful if you gave a proper reason for the removal. That section you removed had useful sourced content. If you see other related articles like list of tallest buildings in South East Asia or even list of tallest buildings in other sub regions they all have a similar section, your content removal does not seem constructive therefore I'm reverting back to the previous version. Joy goel (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Hello, I'm JPxG. I noticed that in this edit to List of shopping malls in India, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. jp×g 07:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dravidian peoples. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

January 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SKAG123 (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate comments

Hi,

I think there is some issue on your end where you're posting a bunch of duplicate comments. You should consider using the edit button to find and edit your original comments instead of making a new one with most of the same info Soni (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for nationalist personal attacks on the page Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict, you have been partially blocked from editing the Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict page for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

The next time you accuse other editors of misbehavior because of their ethnicity, you will be fully blocked from editing. I strongly encourage you to review what we consider "battleground" behavior -- you're exemplifying it in your edits, and if it continues, it will likewise result in a full block. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Orientls (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Please note that per the above restriction, which I first informed you about 8 months ago, prohibits you from discussing Indian military history other than to make well-formatted, uncontroversial edit requests. Please desist from continuing discussion beyond your initial request at Talk:2025_India–Pakistan_conflict#Swiss_report_should_be_put_in_analysts_section, and review WP:ECREXPLAIN to better understand expectations and best practices for new editors in highly contentious topics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I also suggest you read wp:v, a source has to say what you claim it says, not how you interpret it. If you keep on a soruce says something that does not, that can (and will at some point) be seen as misrepresenting sources.

It is also not a good idea to wp:bludgeon talk pages with incorrect interpretations of sources (check out wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

That report mentions several other things other than aircraft numbers. It says 2 aircraft damaged and 2 destroyed. The report clearly says India achieved air superiority after destroying several pak air bases and provided satellite images of the destruction. Its from an neutral source and it should be there. Slatersteven Samsam111 (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for continuing to attempt to argue for content related to Indian military history, despite being aware of the restriction on new editors from doing so and having been specifically warned to disengage on the page Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

• @Rosguill: This editor violated ECR once again. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 14:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for repeatedly disregarding WP:CT/IMH's restriction on editing and discussion of Indian military history topics, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."