User talk:Nayak52

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Nayak52! I am LouriePieterse and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Lourie Pieterse 10:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Alan Partridge, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Lourie Pieterse 10:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Dravidian peoples. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 17:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Dravidian peoples shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you notions on the Dravidian People Talk page. These POV users are trying spread propaganda amongst articles. We need more editors like you. (Tamilan101 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Notification

Hello. This message is to notify you that you have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. The thread is Dravidians: Caucasoids or Australoids?. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello, I'm Unbh. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hindu American Foundation 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. Unbh (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did insert an edit description for this edit. It was not a mistake, as that passage that I deleted was irrelevant and biased. It was a negative characterization of an advocacy group that seeks to combat the biases and injustice against a community. This might be reasonable if the the prior or later sections of the description gave any focus on the grievances and injustices the group seeks to remedy. Instead the entire passage and most of the page is similarly one sided, often with no real foundation.

I will try again later. nayak52 (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea to do it again. Note that the article should be mainly based on secondary sourced meeting WP:RS, not the organisation itself. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]