User talk:AvadhutChintan

Welcome!

Hello, AvadhutChintan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you 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 already excited about Wikipedia, 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 when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 19:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

July 2022

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sarasvati River without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Saraswati river has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. RegentsPark (comment) 19:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Sarasvati River, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AvadhutChintan! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Sarasvati River 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 at Talk:Sarasvati River, 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasvati River edits

Hi Kautilya3!

I am aware of the policies. Let me quote directly from there.

“There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot will usually be considered edit warring. There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons…”

Clearly, I did not violate any community norms by engaging in vandalism. Despite that, you reverted my changes twice so far. Your objection to my edit was that the reference was outdated. Answer the following questions for me:

1. Who defines if something is contemporary or something is outdated? 2. I have already explained the reason in my latest edit message as to why this addition to the Sarasvati River page is important. Can you elaborate your objections as to why you do not think it’s necessary to have this addition before you revert for a third time and engage in an edit war? 3. Concretely explain what is the issue with a reference from 1942 when there are other references dating back to 1893?

Can you satisfactorily answer these questions before reverting again if your only issue with my addition is the outdated reference. If not, elaborate what you mean clearly. AvadhutChintan (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content you added was inserted into a section on "Contemporary politico-religious meaning", but recounts early ideas from 1945, which were neither political nor religious. Moreover, you gave your own description of what the paper said, but you need to convince other involved editors that it is an accurate description. That can only be done on the talk page. You need to understand the importance of WP:CONSENSUS in developing Wikipedia content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 16 July 2022 (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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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 19:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Doug! AvadhutChintan (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Sarasvati River) for a period of 1 week for edit-warring at that article; Please use the article talkpage rather than edit-summaries to propose and discuss your changes till consensus is reached. Since yours is a new account the block has been kept short and very narrow in the hope that you will use the oppurtunity to learn about and follow the BRD process.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Abecedare (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]