User talk:Akshatra

August 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Buddhism and Hinduism has 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.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Buddhism and Hinduism was changed by Akshatra (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.937511 on 2014-08-12T11:22:43+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Buddhism and Hinduism. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. DVdm (talk) 11:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced opinions and unreliable sources as you did to w:Criticism of Hinduism. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. I added the source and also stop giving me non-sense messages or warnings. Akshatra (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Criticism of Hinduism. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User: NeilN calm down. I am not in and edit war with someone neither am I in war with another user. I added the sources to various content. You can check out yourself. Thanks Akshatra (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are still restoring unsourced material. And a random essay by a random person [1] is not a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Criticism of Hinduism with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DVdm (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2014 (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:Akshatra reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Criticism of Hinduism

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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 this 3RR case (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why is it that I am blocked for infinity? I should be allowed to edit wikipedia. Akshatra (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The reason is clearly given above and here. Kuru (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (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.

I thought this observation by NQ was interesting. PhilKnight (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]