User talk:Sarvesh130

Welcome!

Hello, Sarvesh130, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
Wikipedia does not tolerate copyright violations or plagiarism. Paraphrase sources, do not steal text from them.
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Yuga, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Yuga, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Yuga. Highway 89 (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Yuga 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. 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Lakshmi. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to slow down and learn what you're doing

We have a tutorial here. You should try it.

Also, I've written a guide that covers a variety of matters.

Just saying you've researched the topic proves nothing. You must cite sources, as I've explained above. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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 ~~~~}}. utcursch | talk 02:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please use this time to read WP:V and WP:RS. Also, go through WP:TUTORIAL, if you haven't already. utcursch | talk 02:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:EW. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarvesh130, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

GirthSummit _(blether) 15:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Yuga

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Yuga, you may be blocked from editing. Highway 89 (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued disruptive editing, edit-warring and ignoring feedback about the need to follow wikipedia's sourcing and original research policies.

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) 02:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]