User talk:Devanampriya/Archive 2

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia , I hope you will like it here and decide to stay.

You may want to take a look at the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages.

Here are some links I've found useful:
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Merge
 * New user log
 * Be Bold
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Wikiquette
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * User page
 * How to upload files
 * Image copyright tags

Also: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. This will automatically add your username and the time after your comments. Signing with three tildes &#126;&#126;&#126; will just sign your username. I hope to see you around Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ... C ]

04:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

These links might interest you.

- Ganeshk  ( talk ) 06:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Indian astronomy
Correct. There are some misleading or less recognized information in those articles, you should leave a comment at the talk page once again. So that a consensus can be built. Justicejayant (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment
These pages, for example Dharmachakra are probably made by the users who have focused only upon buddhism, or similar theories, they weren't aware about the pre-buddhist concept or they don't add.

It was suprising how citations are given on that page, still someone would add the tag.

As for Indian Astronomy a particular section has indeed some unknown or contradictory texts, i edited it already. There is obvious role of Indian astronomy towards greek astronomy, but due to many christian invasion, the proofs are lost. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please give your view on dharmachakra talk so we can hopefully wrap up this debate. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough. Nice meeting you. Devanampriya (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Neo-Vedanta & Rajiv Malhotra
Fair: you used the summary that was already in the note - though reworded. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem, good sir. Though, I think the current version strays a bit--which I will address there. In any event, I do hope we can work out our other disagreements in the same spirit of civility. Whatever our disagreement may be about accuracy, I do think we both want a good, NPOV encyclopedia. My suggestion is that we initiate a discussion on the hinduism talk page. Since your issue is with the chronology, I think it would save us both time and unnecessary acrimony. Our differences may continue to divide us, but I do hope we can operate on good faith and with collegiality. Good day. Devanampriya (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

AN notice
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Devanampriya keeps reverting at Yoga Page". Thank you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with a Cambridge university source?
Samuel reference is published by Cambridge university. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yoga as Hindu school
Yoga as a Hindu school, has nothing to do with yoga as a whole. You are mixing up 2 different things. There is not one academic book that says yoga originated in Hinduism. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2014 (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. Thank you.

January 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Dharmacakra. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Note to reviewing administrators: The only part above that I actually have some sympathy with is the issue of staleness. I commented on that issue here, but it's still the user's best argument. Unfortunately, the user doesn't just make that argument but, as elsewhere, is needlessly combative.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Devanampriya is combative, and this can be pointed out. Bbb is scrupulously fair: your opponent got blocked too, but they're not crying a river over it. The sooner you realize that you edited against Wikipedia policies, the more you won't ever be blocked again. Note to reviewing administrators: I could have reviewed this unblock request but I won't, since I have faith in Bbb and very little in this editor--note that they continue all these accusations, with the attendant rationale that it's not their own fault. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

DRN request
I've closed your DRN request for multiple reasons. Please see there. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 06:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marathon Man (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Indo-Greek kingdom
Which arbcom proceeding you were talking about? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

/Archive 1

/Archive 2

January 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kakatiya dynasty. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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) 14:19, 3 January 2016 (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.
 * Look pal, you can't just give edit warnings when you yourself initiated the edit war and found yourself bound by 3RR. Wikipedia discussions necessitate congeniality and assumption of good faith. I asked why you thought opinion was relevant in a section involving fact. If you are familiar with the content, discuss it. Don't just issue threats. Got it? Devanampriya (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Template abuse
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Retaliatory edit warring templates, obviously copied from the template you received yourself and shot straight back within minutes, is a disruptive trick I've seen many times, and it has never boded well. If you want to come across as remotely "congenial", per your comment to Kautilya3 above, I advise you to avoid it. (Also aggressive phrases like "Got it?" and edit summaries like this.) Bishonen &#124; talk 20:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Any comments on this, which does the same and subsequently insults my handle, or are discretionary sanctions and warnings only selectively applied?Devanampriya (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I now see K had used the same aggressive phrasing, yes, so I no longer blame you for doing it. I might even have said a word about it to him, if he had also used templates aggressively, etc. It's not a big deal in itself. For the rest, I'm not allowed to post a discretionary sanction alert if a user has already received one in the previous 12 months. Nor are these alerts intended to be a sanction in themselves, or insulting in some way. Did you notice where it says "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date"? (Bolding in the original.) If you expect me to take stock of the thing about your username, you had better explain it; I don't speak all the world's languages. I'm sorry my brief parenthesis was the only part of my post you choose to comment on. It wasn't the most important part. Bishonen &#124; talk 05:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Am glad that you see I was merely responding in kind to user Kautilya3 who had initiated uncongenial and aggressive phrasing.I accept your apology and I duly note your point about a 12 month rule for discretionary sanctions alerts.I had been concerned about why only I had received the notice, but now I see your point. Happy we're on the same page now. Good day.Devanampriya (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. I certainly didn't use "got it?" as aggression. It was meant to be friendly and casual, and his mirroring of it as sarcasm. In any case, "responding in kind" is what the problem here is. The response to a revert is not another revert. As per WP:BRD, it is discussion. The response to an edit-warring notice is also supposed to be discussion, not a counter-notice. As long as this user things responding in kind is the proper behaviour, I am sure we will find it hard to work with him. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion requires both parties to explain their actions. Pages are not owned by individuals or groups of friends to stifle dissent, which seems to be the real problem. I have explained my edits a number of times, though no explanation was offered on the content itself by the reverter. Reverting an explained restoration of content is edit warring, and bringing others in to circumvent WP:3RR is not WP:Good Faith or proper behavior. Those who find it hard to work with others should remember that it takes two hands to clap. Anything else need not be said on my talk, which is a personal space, but on the article talk. Devanampriya (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are digging a deeper hole for yourself.
 * "Reverting a restoration of content is edit warring." Please provide a diff that shows that "restoration" was reverted.
 * "Bringing others to circumvent WP:3RR." Please provide a diff that shows that I brought in anybody.
 * "takes two hands to clap." Please provide a diff for where you started a discussion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Learn to respect the requests of other editors, and not comment on personal spaces when told so. This is called collegiality. The editor who reverted my edit in your favour is obviously a friend. No "diff" required--a simple gander of a talk page is all that is needed.
 * You reverted my restoration of the date for the dynasty's beginning here.
 * I don't need to start a discussion, I just need to continue it, which I have done both in edit summary and on talk. I have clearly engaged in discussion on article talk, as anyone can clearly see.By continuing to comment here rather than the talk page as I had already ask, you are digging an even deeper hole for yourself. Respect the requests of other editors to leave their private spaces alone.Devanampriya (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You appear still to be edit warring despite the numerous notices and explanations above. I'm afraid that your time contributing to Wikipedia may be coming to an end unless you change your ways very quickly. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not issue threats that will very well boomerang on you.We have had no interaction and you are no admin, so engaging in WP:Hounding will result in ending your time here on Wikipedia if you do not change your ways right away. If you comment here again without official sanction, I will delete it.Devanampriya (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have commented here precisely once. I don't think that is hounding. However, edit summaries such as this and your repeated insinuations at Talk:Kakatiya dynasty etc that Kautilya3 and Joshua Jonathan are sockpuppets most definitely do constitute personal attacks. I can assure you that the two are not one and, further, that they are not a tag-team (ie: engaging in meatpuppetry). I think it might be time to call back here to give you some advice. Perhaps you will accept from her what you clearly will not accept from anyone else. At best, you are being extremely disruptive with your mass reverts; at worst, you are exhibiting an attitude which is almost the antithesis of that required of Wikipedians. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kakatiya dynasty. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. ''You have a habit of doing mass-reverts to re-insert one piece of info. Please learn to edit in a proper way.''  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * 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.


 * Do not comment on my talk page when we are having a discussion on an article page. You made bad faith edits and reverted my own edit. If you comment here again, without official sanction, I will remove it from my page.Devanampriya (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing on Kakatiya dynasty and its talkpage. You have received plenty of advice both about remaining civil and about avoiding edit warring and disruption, and it doesn't seem to be making any difference. The attacks in this edit, including its edit summary, are completely unacceptable. The persistent accusations of "bringing others in to circumvent WP:3RR" and of respectable editors working together to "stifle dissent" are simply unfounded and unevidenced personal attacks. And when a highly experienced editor in this area, User:Sitush, gives you good advice on your page — once — you accuse him of "hounding", because, forsooth, "we have had no interaction and you are no admin". Apparently you think there's no need to listen to or be civil to anyone who is not an admin. You're wrong; that is not the Wikipedia culture at all. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)