User talk:AquaIndian

January 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Jaswant Singh II 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: Jaswant Singh II was changed by Jai Aryavart (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.94466 on 2020-01-14T19:37:24+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Dayananda Saraswati

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dayananda Saraswati, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed 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) 19:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reference was a book on life of swami dayananda written just after his death by Pandit Lekhram(Most Reliable Source you can find on Seamiji). I do not have any online link to that book, I myself have the book which was printed about 50 years ago. Jai Aryavart (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Frankenstein. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Jai Aryavart. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Arya Samaj, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Social rejection, you may be blocked from editing. Please provide a rationale for this edit based on policy or sources. Otherwise, it appears as if you are just reverting any edit by MrOllie, and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point will not be tolerated. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Arya Samaj, you may be blocked from editing. Ifnord (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Satyarth Prakash. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not adding my point of view, everything I added was referenced, I am just replacing wrong information with right information, I you ask me to show I can clearly show you proofs what is true and what is not,I am editing these pages because I have researched on Arya Samaj for last 5 Years and so I know when information provided there is wrong.

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Satyarth Prakash were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Adam's Bridge, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Wikipedia's definition of vandalism is at WP:VAND. Please examine that page because referring to good-faith edits as "vandalism" is a personal attack and will lead to a block if repeated. Example, "Reverted Vandalism" at diff. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith edits? Does Grossly wrong edits comes under good faith? Jai Aryavart (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to Adam's Bridge, it's clear you haven't read the talk page carefully and the discussions linked at the top about changing its name. I would really like to know what is suddenly driving all of these requests by people who haven't bothered to do that and clearly don't understand that different language Wikipedias use different names. We use the most common name found in English language reliable sources. If you look at the references in the article some are Indian, even the Indian government. The Tamil wikipedia calls it Adam's Bridge but it's been a decade since anyone has complained there. Doug Weller talk 09:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That Bridge is a Hindu Landmark, Christian's are trying to relate it to christianity by naming it after Adam. Even when article itself claim that Bridge was referred first in Hindu texts.

You have absolutely no right to even talk about these things you have no knowledge about nor you know anything about the societal impact of such articles in local eegion Jai Aryavart (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article has nothing to do with religion. Claiming it does and further attempting to decide who has the right to discuss the issue or not is a violation of all of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Continuing to pursue this course in this manner can and will lead to blocks or bans. I notice from this talk page that your history on this project so far has been heavily marked by a failure to understand this project's civility requirements. All editors, no matter what their background or their position on issues raised by articles, are expected to work together with collegiality. Your attempts to impose your understanding upon others will not end well. I hope this helps explain the situation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

Please check the citation and conclusion which i have provided then go on deciding the vandalism. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfalah7711 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again i am warning you please read before doing any changes if you have any difference of opinion you are welcome to discuss it here.Please follow edit rules otherwise you can be even banned from further edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedfalah7711 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You Must discuss this in Talk section before editing Jai Aryavart (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did not give any citation while claiming RSS as terror organisation, without proper citation I reverted changes you made. Jai Aryavart (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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.

Doug Weller talk 14:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Burhan Wani. Just to let you know that your continuous disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia is no longer funny. Consider this as a final warning. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What disruptive? I cited it to sources, calling a terrorist terrorist is disruptive? Jai Aryavart (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:TERRORIST. It was also enough to go through the edit history or check the talk page before making disruptive and POV edits. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]