User talk:YoloSCIS

August 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 Bangalore riots. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please mention the line in the article where the info i am adding is being mentioned. Please do not remove citations to published material. YoloSCIS (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are restoring content from previously removed unreliable sources and called it vandalism, that's an improper use of edit summaries for one. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again please mention the line in the article where the info i am adding is being mentioned or else do not remove it. Times of India is UNRELIABLE source? This is a strange accusation to make. YoloSCIS (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You repeated the line regarding Muhammad in the lead. And yes, Times of India (RSP entry) despite being very popular is not reliable especially in this kind of issue, there's an established consensus on it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your statement, TOI has 'No Consensus' rather than an 'established consensus'. Please do not post incorrect facts. The first line should be descriptive of the event which here is not hence the word. I am using the exact description as in the reported content. Do NOT remove it. YoloSCIS (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entry states that its reliability is between "no consensus" to "generally unreliable", you can look at the table on the page to know what that means. In the case of ToI it is based on an established consensus through an RfC which is linked in the entry. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your consistent contribution to Yashwant Kelkar Tessaracter (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Wendy Doniger, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]