User talk:Sahyadrisingh

February 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Peyton Sawyer has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * 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: Peyton Sawyer was changed by Sahyadrisingh (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.851793 on 2014-02-15T17:12:32+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Peyton Sawyer article
This makes no sense when "née Sawyer" is already there in parentheses; that is why I keep reverting you. Stop adding it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppetry is prohibited; stop engaging in it as different IPs, as you did here, here and here, or you will be reported for it and eventually WP:Blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you were simply adding material with your IP, that would not be a problem. But you are using your IP inappropriately -- to WP:Edit war and evade WP:Scrutiny. Flyer22 (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Flyer22 (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm Flyer22. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Peyton Sawyer, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Peyton Sawyer article again
See what I recently stated about you and your WP:Disruption here. Since I have no patience for the kind of behavior that you have repeatedly engaged in at the Peyton Sawyer article, this is likely my last manual post to your talk page. Any future posts I make to your talk page will very likely be warnings issued by WP:Huggle or to let you know that I have reported you at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) or for WP:Sockpuppetry. Whether or not you think you can keep editing in the disruptive way that you have been editing, I will put a stop to it so that there will be no more of your coming back days, weeks or months later to start back up your problematic editing. I'm thinking of simply having the lead state Peyton Sawyer or Peyton Elizabeth Sawyer for Peyton's name, and this is per the reasoning I gave in this discussion you started on my talk page (do not reply there; that discussion is archived). If you truly wanted to discuss this matter, you would have discussed it instead of abandoning the discussion to instead keep your disputed edits going. That Peyton Sawyer married Lucas Scott is best left to the infobox. If you revert, then that is it. Your last chance. Flyer22 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Judging by this, you didn't listen well. For example, Peyton Sawyer's WP:Common name (click on that policy and read it) is Peyton Sawyer; above in this section and recently here, I argued for using her WP:Common name, not for "Scott." And as many at this site know, I am female. The vast majority of One Tree Hill viewers are female. I kept reverting to "Scott," because, like I stated, there is no WP:Reliable source (not even the show as a WP:Primary source) showing that Peyton Sawyer ever goes by the name "Peyton Elizabeth Sawyer Scott." The show at least acknowledges that she goes by "Peyton Scott."


 * You are not only WP:Edit warring at the Peyton Sawyer article, but you have been WP:Edit warring at the Brooke Davis and Haley James Scott articles, as recently as this edit, and your IP-hopping is aiding you in your WP:Edit warring. I might report you for WP:Sockpuppetry later today or tomorrow. And I do object to your adding "Brooke Penelope Davis Baker" to the Brooke Davis article; I didn't remove that, however, because that article is already very poor, the name thing is just an added bonus, and I didn't feel like fully taking on two articles when it comes to reverting you. As for "Haley James Scott" or "Haley Bob James Scott"... Well, Haley was known by "Haley James Scott" for several years, since the end of season 1; it's her WP:Common name (that's why her Wikipedia article is at that title). Flyer22 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)