User talk:1987sagarkaul

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Yoga. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Yoga, you may be blocked from editing.

Please do not restore your changes - instead please go to the article's talk page and discuss the changes you want to make. bonadea contributions talk 14:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Yoga with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Eye snore (pc) 14:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The specific policies I see as being not adhered to are WP:NPOV (because opinions are presented as facts), WP:V (because most of the controversial text has no source at all, and the sources provided are not reliable sources), and WP:3RR. Please have a look at those policies. And do not restore the text again since that constitutes edit warring. Discuss on the article's talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 14:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:1987sagarkaul reported by User:Bentogoa (Result: ). Thank you. Bentogoa (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Yoga. Eye snore (pc) 14:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Yoga

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:1987sagarkaul reported by User:Bentogoa (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Discuss the changes you want to make on the article's talk page" does not mean adding the text to the talk page and then restoring it to the article again without even waiting for a reply. Since so many different editors (I make it six or seven different people) have disagreed with the change, you have to get consensus in favour of your changes before you add them to the article. And for the reasons outlines in the many notices above, your changes will never be acceptable in the exact form you have proposed them now. That's why you have to discuss on the article talk page, meaning that you wait for other editors' opinions and suggestions for change - again, the text you suggest is not acceptable as it is. You asked on my talk page how to find better references; that's exactly the kind of question you need to ask on the article's talk page. When your block is lifted, you must not restore the text again to the article. If you do, you will probably be blocked again, for a longer period of time. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 15:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1987sagarkaul, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]