User talk:അദ്വൈതൻ

Citing sources
Please have a look at Reliable sources - the blog post that you added here is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. You can cite the actual newspaper article mentioned in this blog post instead. utcursch &#124; talk 00:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Religion in Kerala have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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: Religion in Kerala was changed by അദ്വൈതൻ (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.91265 on 2021-06-23T19:39:20+00:00

June 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Religion in Kerala have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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: Religion in Kerala was changed by അദ്വൈതൻ (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.958611 on 2021-06-26T12:50:39+00:00

June 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Religion in Kerala have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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: Religion in Kerala was changed by അദ്വൈതൻ (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.899758 on 2021-06-28T17:28:26+00:00

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Religion in Kerala. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Religion in Kerala was changed by അദ്വൈതൻ (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.956231 on 2021-06-30T09:48:27+00:00

Important Notices
WikiLinuz 🍁 ( talk ) 05:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Varna (Hinduism), you may be blocked from editing. WikiLinuz 🍁 ( talk ) 05:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Varna (Hinduism). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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: 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.  WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 05:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please stop edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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: 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. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

 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:. PhilKnight (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Shiva, did not appear to be constructive and have 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. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi അദ്വൈതൻ! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmm I see you have a history of disruptive editing and edit warring. Consider this your final warning. If you still continue to disrupt, you will once again be blocked. Please read the policies linked above and, most importantly, explain your changes on articles' talk pages — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is a clear case of WP:IDHT. They know how to use edit summaries, so it's not like they're not seeing the multiple people telling them about BRD, taking it to talk, etc. I don't see what this person is adding here other than disruption. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Moxy - 02:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 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:. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to continue on Wikipedia, read WP:BRD as a matter of urgency to discover how consensus works here. You have been reverted multiple times and now the onus is on you to make a case for your changes and gain consensus on the article talk pages. If you carry on edit warring you're heading for a permanent block. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Proper citations?
Until you removed it in what seems to have been a "fly-by" tagging, the first para of the Marriage in ancient Rome introduction was cited to Scheidel, a highly reputable scholar. You also ought to know (as you've been around for quite some time) that the introductory sections of articles are supposed to function as digests of sourced article content in the main article body, and therefore should only be tagged as needing citation if they do not reflect or summarize the main article content. Thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

So I've just been through the entire history of the article; unfortunately, access to versions before 6 April 2017 and previous 10 years or so is no longer possible, due to my own detection of a deeply embedded copyright violation between those dates. There's also been substantial link-rot, affecting online access to that particular version of the Scheidel article, and possibly the Treggiari as well; there are several editions and revisions of each, all with differing pagination. At some point, once I've a space between current rewrites, I'll be rewriting the introduction and main article, using whatever good quality sources are available. Thanks again, Haploidavey (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Please re-read the above; it explains how tagging for sources should work. Under the circumstances, your second tagging of the lead sentences in the same article is disruptive. Haploidavey (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. 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. ★Trekker (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 refrain making POV edits to the Marriage in ancient Rome article.★Trekker (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made some edits which incorporates your aditions but preserves most of the material that you removed. If you have further issues with the article please start a discussion on the talk page.★Trekker (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edits at Marriage in ancient Rome violate the three-revert rule and are liable to be considered edit-warring. I suggest that you self-revert your latest edit and engage in discussion at Talk:Marriage in ancient Rome; if you do not you are likely to be blocked for edit-warring. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Marriage in ancient Rome
Hi അദ്വൈതൻ! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Marriage in ancient Rome several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Stop hand nuvola.svg Your recent editing history at Marriage in ancient Rome 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; read about 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SeanTVT (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Marriage in ancient Rome. 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:. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ★Trekker (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Your recent editing history at Marriage in ancient Rome‎‎ 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; read about 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NebY (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. NebY (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Marriage in ancient Rome) for a period of 3 months 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 at the bottom of your talk page:. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

May 2024
Hello, I'm AgisdeSparte. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Joseph Kallarangatt—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. AgisdeSparte (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't understand on what standards the information that I added that too with proper citations doesn't appear to be constructive and is very necessary to be reverted, unless someone has to put up a biased narrative on a living person.
 * Check sources and edit with good faith instead of reverting. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. ''Accusing an editor of foul play for reverting your bold change is not acceptable. Additionally, seek consensus before reinserting information into an article, especially if it contains multiples grammatical issues. Failure to do so can be construed as edit warring. ~'' Pbritti (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It is a content dispute, keep the discussion in the article's talk page അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
Hello, I'm Charliehdb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Anchakkallakokkan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Charliehdb (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It is a content dispute, keep the discussion in the article's talk page അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Western Standard
Don't continue to push that source, per WP:ONUS, when multiple editors are saying it is unreliable. TarnishedPathtalk 12:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * reliability of WS is issue. But if WS made headlines, it is a development. WS isn't used as citations but the headlines the WS made is used അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 13:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 0. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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: 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. JBL (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * It is a content dispute. Keep the discussions in the article's talk page. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Vedic heliocentrism
some one had readded the statement about heliocentrism in Vedic scriptures in heliocentrism article the subsection of ancient India talks about is can you see whether this reference provide is reliable and secondly the reference is based on the work Discovery that changed the world by a person named Rodney castleden who isn't even a historian nor a physicist nor his work isn't even an scientific journal Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Many articles on Wikipedia about scientific/mathematical innovations from India contain unrelated citations, bogus references etc altogether giving false information resulting in heavy tribalism of scientific achievements among the majority Hindu faithfuls(ie., thoughts like India did first, India discovered it first, Ancient India was advance civilisation etc). These entries often combine scientific achievements with Vedic-Hindu ideas, the other stream is from Tamil nationalism, which is unrelated to the former.
 * For example the wiki page regarding Tamil Numerals in English falsely claims Tamil Numerals used Zero and decimal place value system since beginning, but in reality languages like Tamil Malayalam Sinhala began only to use zero and decimal place value system when they were introduced to their language by the Europeans during colonialism. I am in process is reading the reliable works on it.
 * If you find other Wikipedia articles or lines within an article like these please feel to inform here. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right, recently I got this same stuff even in History of botany article in the medieval knowledge section the subsection of the medieval india talks about the statement like
 * I have talked to other editors and they had added unreliable or bogus tag to it. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good that you had edited the ancient India sub section on history of botany same do it for medieval india subsection because it also has questionable claims and secondly they made this website as a reference for the medieval india sub section
 * [Http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t&#x20;es/t&#x20;es&#x20;tiwar&#x20;botany&#x20;frameset.htm http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/t_es/t_es_tiwar_botany_frameset.htm]
 * Which doesn't even qualify for Wikipedia reliable source Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)