User talk:AvadhutChintan

July 2022
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sarasvati River without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Your edit to Saraswati river has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. RegentsPark (comment) 19:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Sarasvati River, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Doug Weller talk 20:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi AvadhutChintan! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Sarasvati River 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 Talk:Sarasvati River, 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Sarasvati River edits
Hi Kautilya3!

I am aware of the policies. Let me quote directly from there.

“There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot will usually be considered edit warring. There are certain exemptions to the three-revert rule, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons…”

Clearly, I did not violate any community norms by engaging in vandalism. Despite that, you reverted my changes twice so far. Your objection to my edit was that the reference was outdated. Answer the following questions for me:

1. Who defines if something is contemporary or something is outdated? 2. I have already explained the reason in my latest edit message as to why this addition to the Sarasvati River page is important. Can you elaborate your objections as to why you do not think it’s necessary to have this addition before you revert for a third time and engage in an edit war? 3. Concretely explain what is the issue with a reference from 1942 when there are other references dating back to 1893?

Can you satisfactorily answer these questions before reverting again if your only issue with my addition is the outdated reference. If not, elaborate what you mean clearly. AvadhutChintan (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The content you added was inserted into a section on "Contemporary politico-religious meaning", but recounts early ideas from 1945, which were neither political nor religious. Moreover, you gave your own description of what the paper said, but you need to convince other involved editors that it is an accurate description. That can only be done on the talk page. You need to understand the importance of WP:CONSENSUS in developing Wikipedia content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Doug Weller  talk 17:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 19:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Doug! AvadhutChintan (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Sarasvati River) for a period of 1 week for edit-warring at that article; Please use the article talkpage rather than edit-summaries to propose and discuss your changes till consensus is reached. Since yours is a new account the block has been kept short and very narrow in the hope that you will use the oppurtunity to learn about and follow the BRD process.. 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:. Abecedare (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)