User talk:Rioter 1

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) 13:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I happened to look at your contribution history. I think you are not reading the context correctly at Basharat Peer, 'part' is indeed correct in the given context. Please have patience and read it one more time. Also Your addition at Ghar Wapsi, though correct, isn't a terrible improvement, the article is anyway in the dumps. You can probably work on improving the article as a whole, feel free to use non-English source if that is what you get. It is not an old term, there may not be many English sources, look at other Indian language sources. I am sure other editors will not have a problem if you develop the article as a whole instead of adding just half a phrase. Just my opinion. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 15:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, I'm RegentsPark. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Anti-Hindu sentiment, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history 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. regentspark (comment) 20:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's basic policy not to restore unsourced material

Please read all of WP:VERIFY, but the key bit in this case is "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports<ref>A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if that information is directly present in the source, so that using this source to support this material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research." Thanks. If you wish you can copy it to the talk page to see if others can source it, but it shouldn't be restored unsourced. Help:Referencing for beginners tells you how to cite sources, WP:RS along with VERIFY tells you what types of sources we use. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions

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 recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 any 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.

Please actually do read WP:BLP, by the way. The first sentence says quite clearly Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional discretionary sanctions

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 recently 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 any 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.

Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Hello, I'm DIYeditor. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sati (practice), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history 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. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DIYeditor. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Entry of women to Sabarimala does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roshen Dalal is a historian

You should read her article, particularly the last sentence where it mentions she d has done research in history. She is not your typical historian, I accept it. But she does have academic qualifications.

A book of hers mentions her credentials which I am sourcing as I earlier said, go here and scroll down to About the Author. PhD in Ancient Indian History, she has also done research projects done in history. 59.89.41.59 (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guruvayur Temple

Its website is not a reliable source for history as it's obviously in its own interest to make those claims. You'll need independent sources that meet WP:RS. And surely if there were "legends" they would have sources discussing them, right? Do you know anything specific about them? Doug Weller talk 13:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Persecution of Hindus; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You have been warned multiple times by multiple editors but you continue to indulge in the same behavior and refuse to adhere to the collaborative and collegial structure of Wikipedia. You have also been warned on discretionary sanctions on the topics you edit. If this behavior continues then you will either be blocked and/or topic banned from the area. —SpacemanSpiff 03:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for long term disruptive and tendentious editing without any regard for policy or editing collegially. 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 ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 16:06, 22 November 2019 (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.

∯WBG^converse 16:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]