Hello, അദ്വൈതൻ and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one 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 interested in learning more about contributing, 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. Happy editing! Rasnaboy (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Religion in Kerala have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Religion in Kerala was changed by അദ്വൈതൻ(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.91265 on 2021-06-23T19:39:20+00:00
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Religion in Kerala have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Religion in Kerala was changed by അദ്വൈതൻ(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.958611 on 2021-06-26T12:50:39+00:00
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Religion in Kerala have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Religion in Kerala was changed by അദ്വൈതൻ(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.899758 on 2021-06-28T17:28:26+00:00
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Religion in Kerala. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automaticallyreverted.
If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Religion in Kerala was changed by അദ്വൈതൻ(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.956231 on 2021-06-30T09:48:27+00:00
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.
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.
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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Varna (Hinduism). 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Hi അദ്വൈതൻ! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I see you have a history of disruptive editing and edit warring. Consider this your final warning. If you still continue to disrupt, you will once again be blocked. Please read the policies linked above and, most importantly, explain your changes on articles' talk pages — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a clear case of WP:IDHT. They know how to use edit summaries, so it's not like they're not seeing the multiple people telling them about BRD, taking it to talk, etc. I don't see what this person is adding here other than disruption. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to continue on Wikipedia, read WP:BRD as a matter of urgency to discover how consensus works here. You have been reverted multiple times and now the onus is on you to make a case for your changes and gain consensus on the article talk pages. If you carry on edit warring you're heading for a permanent block. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Until you removed it in what seems to have been a "fly-by" tagging, the first para of the Marriage in ancient Rome introduction was cited to Scheidel, a highly reputable scholar. You also ought to know (as you've been around for quite some time) that the introductory sections of articles are supposed to function as digests of sourced article content in the main article body, and therefore should only be tagged as needing citation if they do not reflect or summarize the main article content. Thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I've just been through the entire history of the article; unfortunately, access to versions before 6 April 2017 and previous 10 years or so is no longer possible, due to my own detection of a deeply embedded copyright violation between those dates. There's also been substantial link-rot, affecting online access to that particular version of the Scheidel article, and possibly the Treggiari as well; there are several editions and revisions of each, all with differing pagination. At some point, once I've a space between current rewrites, I'll be rewriting the introduction and main article, using whatever good quality sources are available. Thanks again, Haploidavey (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the above; it explains how tagging for sources should work. Under the circumstances, your second tagging of the lead sentences in the same article is disruptive. Haploidavey (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I have made some edits which incorporates your aditions but preserves most of the material that you removed. If you have further issues with the article please start a discussion on the talk page.★Trekker (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi അദ്വൈതൻ! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Marriage in ancient Rome several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
Your recent editing history at Marriage in ancient Rome shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SeanTVT (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Your recent editing history at Marriage in ancient Rome shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NebY (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
I don't understand on what standards the information that I added that too with proper citations doesn't appear to be constructive and is very necessary to be reverted, unless someone has to put up a biased narrative on a living person.
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Accusing an editor of foul play for reverting your bold change is not acceptable. Additionally, seek consensus before reinserting information into an article, especially if it contains multiples grammatical issues. Failure to do so can be construed as edit warring. ~Pbritti (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
reliability of WS is issue. But if WS made headlines, it is a development. WS isn't used as citations but the headlines the WS made is used അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 0. 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
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.
what a drama Pbritti? You are contradicting yourself.
The one saying 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 this here is belittling the same here[1] in that article's talk page. Pathetic അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha. 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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
some one had readded the statement about heliocentrism in Vedic scriptures in heliocentrism article the subsection of ancient India talks about is
Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres
can you see whether this reference provide is reliable and secondly the reference is based on the work Discovery that changed the world by a person named Rodney castleden who isn't even a historian nor a physicist nor his work isn't even an scientific journal Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles on Wikipedia about scientific/mathematical innovations from India contain unrelated citations, bogus references etc altogether giving false information resulting in heavy tribalism of scientific achievements among the majority Hindu faithfuls(ie., thoughts like India did first, India discovered it first, Ancient India was advance civilisation etc). These entries often combine scientific achievements with Vedic-Hindu ideas, the other stream is from Tamil nationalism, which is unrelated to the former.
For example the wiki page regarding Tamil Numerals in English falsely claims Tamil Numerals used Zero and decimal place value system since beginning, but in reality languages like Tamil Malayalam Sinhala began only to use zero and decimal place value system when they were introduced to their language by the Europeans during colonialism. I am in process is reading the reliable works on it.
Yes you are right, recently I got this same stuff even in History of botany article in the medieval knowledge section the subsection of the medieval india talks about the statement like
In India, simple artificial plant classification systems of the Rigveda, Atharvaveda and Taittiriya Samhita became more botanical with the work of Parashara (c. 400 – c. 500 AD), the author of Vṛksayurveda (the science of life of trees). He made close observations of cells and leaves and divided plants into Dvimatrka (Dicotyledons) and Ekamatrka (Monocotyledons). The dicotyledons were further classified into groupings (ganas) akin to modern floral families: Samiganiya (Fabaceae), Puplikagalniya (Rutaceae), Svastikaganiya (Cruciferae), Tripuspaganiya (Cucurbitaceae), Mallikaganiya (Apocynaceae), and Kurcapuspaganiya (Asteraceae)
Good that you had edited the ancient India sub section on history of botany same do it for medieval india subsection because it also has questionable claims and secondly they made this website as a reference for the medieval india sub section
The article of Bhaskaracharya has some questionable reference.In the section of The Siddhānta-Śiromaṇi it mention about motion of planets at instantaneous speeds and also talks about the derivative of sine but the reference given isn't even a science or academic based journal or peer reviewed source but some random website. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I shall look into it. At present I am preoccupied with Medicine Botany and finding reliable books on Mathematics in India. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
meanwhile you can mention other such wikipedia pages, sections within articles, and the sentences here in the talk page whose authenticity seems problematic. @Myuoh kaka roiഅദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a lot of pseudo-sciences originating from India. Most aren't discussed outside proponents of the claim, hence getting a leeway to Wikipedia sans any opposition. For example see the page named Shatapatha Brahmana under the section Significance in Science. Reliability of each Indian origin publications with such claims needs to be discussed.
Much debated topics like Ayurveda has works underlining the facts that they are pseudoscience.
Nationalist and religious jingoist ideas are very common in Wikipedia.I have also seen majority of it even in mediaeval islamic period where they technical falsly claim stuff that was invented by Muslims.I have no problem of actual scientific contribution did by ancient Indians nor muslims but claiming that their religious text like vedas and quran have scientific knowledge or stuff before modern science only to prove their religious superiority destroys the entire reputation of Wikipedia as a source.Wikipedia is meant for providing sources based on neutral point of view irrespective of any religious community.The main reason why these stuff still exist is because it isn't mainstream like Evolution denialism or anti vaccination theory. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Myuoh kaka roi Agreed. In my rough calculation dispunging all such Pseudosciences that originates from India alone which are included in several pages of Wikipedia, requires atleast a year of editing following all the necessary guidelines and policies of this platforms. Not to mention an entire federal government and its system is backing these Pseudosciences(several court cases against Wikipedia has occurred in India, one relating to the Wikipedia's Ayurveda page, a recent one is on the Wikipedia page on ANI). So attempts of reinstating these Pseudosciences will occur again again, hence demands a constant watch on these pages. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is better to remove Vedic heliocentrism in Heliocentrism article since I can't find any other peer reviewed sources and journals backing it.[1] reference which talks extensively on ancient India astronomy doesn't mention anything related to heliocentric and secondly the general consensus among mainstream historians of Indian astronomy is that Indian astronomical systems were fundamentally geocentric, using a non-Ptolemaic double-epicycle model.Nowhere it is mentioned anything related to Vedic heliocentrism if Vedas did consist of heliocentric like concept then it should have been known to astronomers like aryabhatta, varahamira or brahmagupta but all of their models where geocentric. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your contribution on History of medicine article but is it required to provide criticism of Ayurveda in this article since even alternative medicinal practices like Chinese traditional medicine and unani don't have criticism and since it is an article about history of medicine it isn't even required to provide the criticism of any particular medical practice since all medicine pratice from prehistoric until the modern period are pseudoscience.Since medicine practiced from ancient egypt,greece,india,china,islamic world and Europe during middle ages are outdated and are pseudoscientific. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed to since it is an article about history of medicine it isn't even required to provide the criticism of any particular medical practice. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
The section is too detailed and WP:UNDUE. The page is on a college, and one lone incident can't take up so much space, however controversial it may be. The issue needs to be summarised more succinctly. Please look at WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, which describe these common phenomena.
So even if you are quoting some newspaper it should be concise.This is what I did.I didn't change the meaning of what you wrote.I have not removed a single reference.I just made it more concise and and made it appear more neutral.
Also you are not allowing me to add the fact that Muslim Community have apologized for the incident among others.
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).
An administrator blocked me when I raised another user's reverts that crossed 3rr in the Edit warring Noticeboard. Administrator who blocked me asked if I am willing to follow consensus as he sees me doing edit-warring against consensus and I have replied as an editor I am supposed to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which of course mean I have to follow consensus. My count of edits haven't crossed 3rr at the time that Administrator decided to block me and also I haven't made any edits further that could have violated any consensus after that user sought 3rd opinion. I presume the administrator prior to blocking me haven't fully read my long reply and missed to see if I made any edits further after 3rd opinion came. I also request to go through the case I presented in the noticeboard അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2024 (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.
You made three reverts (1, 2, 3). Bbb23 judged this to be edit warring, even if it didn't violate WP:3RR, and as such he blocked you with {{uw-ewblock}} rather than {{uw-3block}}. You should carefully read Wikipedia:Edit warring, which says: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.jlwoodwa (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlwoodwa Thank you for considering my appeal. Are Consensus retroactive as I don't see Celjski getting a block? user named Celjski Grad did first revert at Revision as of 15:34, 6 August 2024 [91], second revert at Revision as of 17:00, 6 August 2024[92], third revert at Revision as of 20:46, 6 August 2024 [93] and fourth revert at revision as of 22:27, 6 August 2024[94]. The user Celjski Grad sought third opinion at its platform on Revision as of 22:25, 6 August 2024 [99] and the opinion came at Revision as of 22:26, 6 August 2024[100](the supposed consensus) at the article's talk page all after Celjski Grad made celjski's third revert(as I listed above) and just a minute before the user's fourth revert. And I haven't made any edits after this violating any supposed consensus.
First off, I'm not an admin, so I can't decide whether or not to unblock you. I just noticed that you seemed to be mistaken about something, and thought I might be able to help clarify it for you.
As for the rest of your message, I don't really understand what went on there, and I can't say whether Celjski Grad should be or will be blocked. But I do know that "I didn't violate consensus" doesn't excuse edit warring. If a consensus doesn't exist yet, you should participate in the discussion and help to form a consensus. Edit warring in the absence of consensus violates the broader community consensus against edit warring. jlwoodwa (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@jlwoodwa apologies, I haven't checked your profile whether you are an admin or not. So it better to ask the same question to the admin who blocked me, isn't it? "I didn't violate consensus" doesn't excuse edit warring If the block was initiated fair and square to both users who were involved I would've concurred with your point. At present block doesn't applied to the user who really crossed the three reverts sans consensus(only a minute of gap exists) while the one who raised that issue is blocked. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 I have already asked for block to be reviewed. I tagged you here to raise my concerns regarding the block initiated by you against me. You have blocked me when I raised another user's reverts that crossed 3rr in the Edit warring Noticeboard. You have asked if I am willing to follow consensus as you sees me doing edit-warring against consensus and I have replied as an editor I am supposed to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies as found here[3], which of course meant I have to follow consensus. My count of edits haven't crossed 3rr at the time that you decided to block me and also I haven't made any edits further that could have violated the supposed consensus after that user sought 3rd opinion instead brought the issue of 3rr to the noticeboard. I presume you prior to blocking me haven't fully read my long reply and missed to see if I made any edits further after 3rd opinion came(the supposed consensus). Also a doubt, are Consensus retroactive as I don't see Celjski getting a block? user named Celjski Grad did first revert at Revision as of 15:34, 6 August 2024, second revert at Revision as of 17:00, 6 August 2024, third revert at Revision as of 20:46, 6 August 2024 and fourth revert at revision as of 22:27, 6 August 2024. The user Celjski Grad sought third opinion at its platform on Revision as of 22:25, 6 August 2024 and the opinion came at Revision as of 22:26, 6 August 2024(the supposed consensus) at the article's talk page all after Celjski Grad made celjski's third revert(as I listed above) and just a minute before the user's fourth revert. And I haven't made any edits after this violating any supposed consensus. I wish you will find time to clarify my concerns. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like an admin to take any of this seriously, you need to stop focusing on what other people do, and only focus on things you have done and what you will do in the future. Celjski's behavior and any punishment Celjski might receive are absolutely irrelevant here. If you don't drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, the next block will likely be a lot longer than 72 hours, especially because this is far from the first time you've received a block to prevent additional edit warring. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeCrumbsCeljski's behavior and any punishment Celjski might receive are absolutely irrelevant here. Celjski is not some random user, I have concerns on that user's behaviour because it is me who reported that user's 3rr at its noticeboard, which ended in only blocking me, which I see it as unfair and injustice.
because this is far from the first time you've received a block to prevent additional edit warring because of blocks I haven't abandoned this account and started a new one to cover up these history, I am still here, and will tomorrow giving my sound contributions. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Celjski is irrelevant here. You control what you do and whether Celjski gets no block or gets globally blocked from all WMF projects has no bearing on your conduct. This advice appears to be moot anyway; the update that you received a checkuser block literally popped up while I was writing this sentence. If and when you're eventually unblocked, you'd be best served to not mention what anyone else did or anyone else's "punishment" at all. Best of luck to you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 @Jpgordon as Administrators involved I would like to know what is checkuserblock-account and why it applied to me into an indefinite block? As shown here 17:12, 7 August 2024 Jpgordon changed block settings for അദ്വൈതൻ with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked). അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2024 (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).
I have been blocked for indefinitely after I made a review of block that would last 72 hours. That review was declined citing Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. Block now indefinite. and my block log now shows changed block settings for അദ്വൈതൻ talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (checkuserblock-account). I believe this block is a misunderstanding. As I am accessing internet using Mobile data whose wifi hotspot are shared within households(friends, family cousins, tenants etc) for them accessing internet, there may be, I don't
know, multiple users editing in Wikipedia using the same connection as I use(I don't know anyone personally)(mobile phone is also shared among extended family too). Therefore I hereby submitting a review of my indefinite block. It is very disheartening, as it is very common here in South Asia to share internet connection, or using a common Wifi for internet access or mobile phone as not everyone be capable of owning their own personal internet connection. I suspect this could be the reason for the CheckUser findings. I assure you that I am not engaging in any abusive behaviour or using multiple accounts. I request a review of my case considering the context of shared internet access in my region. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2024 (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.
^"Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non ... - Google Books" https://books.google.co.in/books?id=kt9DIY1g9HYC&pg=PA317&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Please stop your disruptive editing.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Varna (Hinduism). 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.
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:അദ്വൈതൻ reported by User:Moxy (Result: ). Thank you. Moxy-
02:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
