User talk:Truth should trump

March 2016
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Konkani language has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Goud Saraswat Brahmin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. H.dryad (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on User talk:H.dryad. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. H.dryad (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem
Your addition to Goud Saraswat Brahmin has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without 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 violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See also Talk:Goud Saraswat Brahmin for further information on this issue. Voceditenore (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Your recent editing history at Goud Saraswat Brahmin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 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. Sitush (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If you do not revert this edit I will seek to have you blocked from contributing altogether. The stuff does in fact appear to be sourced, and you've made other unexplained changes. It already seems obvious to me that you are not here to enhance Wikipedia but rather to defend and promote a community of which you are a member - that type of behaviour always ends badly. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

 * Hi, TsT. You asked me on my page to elaborate, so I will. I'm glad you ask when you don't understand, that's very sensible. My post above meant that the Arbitration committee, which is a kind of court on Wikipedia, has made a ruling about India- Pakistan- and Afghanistan-related articles, which you can read here. The important part of the ruling, from your point of view, is that administrators have special permission to sanction anybody who disrupts any of these articles by failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Sanctions can be for instance blocks or topic bans. And the reason I alerted you to the fact that discretionary sanctions are authorized for India and Pakistan is that I was concerned about your editing, especially about comments that sound like you are here to promote your own caste, and also like you think anybody who removes your edits does it because they're trying to promote their castes. You're wrong, you know. Most people here are simply trying to make articles neutral, and I hope you will, too. (Just one example: Here, you reverted ClueBot, saying the bot had made "Purposefully Offensive statements from other caste person". ClueBot isn't an "other caste person", in fact they're not a person at all, but an automatic program for removing vandalism.) What Sitush told you above was very true: "It already seems obvious to me that you are not here to enhance Wikipedia but rather to defend and promote a community of which you are a member." And you have already been blocked for edit warring, which you went ahead and did even though you had been warned about it. You'll get a topic ban if you persist in that kind of editing. I hope that's clearer. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:12, 23 March 2016 (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. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  19:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Goud Saraswat Brahmin. 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:. regentspark (comment) 21:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

 * Note that you can still edit the rest of Wikipedia as soon as your 60-hour block expires. But if you sock again, or otherwise violate your topic ban, you will soon end up indefinitely blocked. Please click here for a brief clear explanation of what a topic ban is.Bishonen &#124; talk 17:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC).