User talk:SolarSyntax

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Execution of Vithoji, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Treaty of Bassein. 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) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maratha–Nizam war of 1751, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Siege of Chittor (1654) for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Siege of Chittor (1654) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Chittor (1654) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Rawn3012 (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:WhiteReaperPM per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WhiteReaperPM. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Izno (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

"I'd like to block all south Asia battles editors" is a bit racist and un-welcoming. I have no idea why I'm blocked if I'm a south asian editor. Go ahead then block every south asian editor. If CU has been used on me and it found me unrelated then there's no reason to block me. Pinging most active admins, Ianblair23, Paul August, Kuru, GiantSnowman, and Thryduulf. Additionally, I have no idea how rediscoverbharat is interested in me, we have never interacted with each other. SolarSyntax (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It doesn't say "south asian editors", it saiys "south asia battles editors". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:26, 6 June 2025 (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.

SolarSyntax (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]