User talk:Priyabrata11

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! Doug Weller talk 12:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to W Hansraj Saxena. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kumari Kandam, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. You also changed the title of a book. Note also that the fact that it is mythical is well sourced. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 13:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Timeline of Indian history 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: Timeline of Indian history was changed by Priyabrata11 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.855372 on 2018-04-14T23:47:25+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Any further disruptive edits and your editing privileges will be completely revoked. This can be anything including the kind of disruption you've done so far -- vandalism, BLP violations, adding original research or your point of view, or it could be something new that you come up with. —SpacemanSpiff 00:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saiva Siddhanta Temple/Church

Hi, I see that you have made changes in the page and even changed the name of the page. Thanks for putting in the effort. But i want to point that Name is Church and not temple. It's official. It says so on their official page. So please revert the edit. <https://www.himalayanacademy.com/livespiritually/global-fellowship>

Have a good day. शिव साहिल (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#NLT matter regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

Your recent editing history at Swami Nithyananda shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

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.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No proper citations to Swami Nithyananda's Page

I accuse SMcCandlish to be having vested interests in defaming Swami Nithyananda. When the user posted the information related to Swami Nithyananda's controversy, the user picked sources which does not ever cite any courts orders or any police reports. Any such citations are a classic case of cunning defamation and Xenophobia against Hindu gurus of such a high strature like that of Swami Nithyananda. Compared to my references which included the courts orders and police reports on the website, SmCCandlish's references did not include any such verdicts or reports from concerned authority. I request SMcCandlish to not post controversial information without proper legal references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyabrata11 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)You need to prove WP:DIFFs that show that it was SMcCandlish who added that material before "accusing" him. You were reverted by everyone but him, if you bothered to pay the least bit of attention instead of blindly attacking the first name you saw like a zealot.

Court documents would be WP:PRIMARY sources, which Wikipedia doesn't use. Wikipedia summarizes academic and journalistic sources instead of interpreting primary sources.

When your block expires, you need to go to this talk page section and address the issues there -- with no personal attacks or accusations toward users, no unproven insinuations about sources cite, no borderline legal threats. Reasonable discussion from a calm and level-headed adult, not paranoid fanaticism. If you attempt to continue to change the article without addressing the issues on the talk page, you will be blocked again. If your future actions include more accusations, insinuations, or personal attacks, the block will be probably be indefinite. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priyabrata11: You're confused. I didn't add any of that material, or even un-revert your reverts of everyone else adding and restoring it. Please learn to use the "View history" feature at the top of each page here. It shows you which editor made which edits. I did post on the talk page in a neutral manner, actually suggesting that people look into your concerns and the sources you want to use. You then made nonsensical legal threats against both Wikipedia and me. That normally results in an indefinite block, which is surely what's going to happen if you ever do it again. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of this nonsense. Now all of a sudden SMcCandlish is what, an operative of Swami Nithyananda? Your accusations and comments make it clear that you do not understand the mechanics of Wikipedia (a question of competence), and they likewise make it clear that you are not here to help us write encyclopedic articles (a question of neutrality). Moreover, this personalizing of a conflict (a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF) is evidence of a battleground attitude, and we can't have that here. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
? I must've missed something. And, I thought the claim was that I was bashing Nithyananda! Lawdy. Well, see Talk:Swami Nithyananda; I'm just trying to moderate the haters/fans editwarring there, and helping find actual sources (pro or con). I have no connection to the subject other than I know someone who's one of his followers (I'm a diehard agnostic with no spiritual/religious leanings of any kind, myself). That individual's expression of alarm about some unsourced alleged defamation in an old version of the article is why I ever dropped by at that page. Since then I've tried to neutralize it, and I've asked WP:NPOVN people to help watchlist it for disruption in either direction. I also e-mailed a WP:SPA with some advice on how to approach WP editing and not get in trouble. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]