User talk:DivineWave
Welcome!
[edit]Hi DivineWave! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! RegentsPark (comment) 12:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
[edit]
Hi DivineWave! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Indus Valley Civilisation that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 12:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Indus Valley Civilisation 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. Austronesier (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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:DivineWave reported by User:Austronesier (Result: ). Thank you. Austronesier (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I cited reliable source. I disagree on this accusations. I even created a talk page and asking for further discussion but the Austronesier is attacking me with the words instead of putting data on talk page and I even told him that I'm open minded and we can discuss yet he himself reported me. Kindly look into this. DivineWave (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Other account(s)
[edit]You made this comment[1] on my take page.
Excerpt: Firstly,this is not my first time. I been editing wikipedia since ages from other device. I just switched to a new one.Secondly, definitely it is vandalism. You have to discuss before reverting...
. This begs the question:
- What is your other account, can you disclose it so we know that you're not using mutliple accounts in violation of WP policies?
- If you have been here for ages, you should know that it is not vandalism when an editor disagrees about an addition of text and reverts it with an edit summary explicitly citing WP policies. And if you have been here for ages without knowing this, it is not unlikely that you have left a trail of battleground behavior that usually leads to a block.
Maybe it is a hasty conclusion, but your behavioral pattern visible in Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation and the necessity to create a new account might be related. A few clarifying words from your side might help. –Austronesier (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like you are someone who attacks people who edit information which you don't want. You are harsh. Firstly my old mobile I used to edit,that mobile was replaced as it got old which has nothing to do with you .I purchased new mobile. Secondly you used multiple accounts or tried to remove without even discussing in talk page I was open to discuss and you were being very harsh even though I cited reliable information which is being taught today in all our universities when we talk about south asian genetics.my only mistake was I couldn't face those multiple revert cleverly made using multiple accounts created an uncomfortable experience for me ,I genuinely want to contribute to wikipedia specially on this article ,I want to edit about genetics related to harappans and its contributions to modern day south Asians. I understand this left wing right wing thing .I got some vibes from you that you were assuming that I am an hindutva guy lol. I don't know whether you are left wing or right wing , I am neither one of them ,I genuinely want to share genetic data. I was even open to discuss on talk page, I said vandalism because that was the behaviour I have seen with rapid reverts using multiple accounts. I personally think genuine Data must be added and should not be made political or uncomfortable experience for users .only mistake I done was 4 times editing for which I'm blocked for a week. Anyways this is the same genetic informationwhich is being taught in universities.Looks like you still want to take on me lol. Anyways it's up to you. Still open for discussion on talk page. Thanks. DivineWave (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- what you are doing using multiple accounts to create uncomfortable experience without discussing in talk page is definitely vandalism. You need to discuss in the talk page about the source which you didn't till now given thebreliable source which is being taught in universities regarding south asian ancestry. but using other accounts and trying to revert which you have done through your account for 2 tines and cleverly escaped the 3 reverting rule by reverting using other accounts. Definitely vandalism and is against wikipedia purpose. DivineWave (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've revoked your access to this page because of the personal attacks. Hopefully, you will not resume them after your block expires, but if you do, you may find yourself indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
[edit]
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.