User talk:Yoonadue

Atheism
If you don't mind me asking, regarding the recent info about atheism being accepted in Christianity, where on the page does it say that? TYelliot &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  08:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the repeated addition of this claim, as the cited source (http://religiousstudies.yale.edu/ogletree) does not contain anything that supports it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I got it from Christian atheism.-Yoonadue (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Hello, Yoonadue. I've removed the words "blocked editor" from your question to another user on Talk:Hatha yoga. I hope you don't mind. For why, please see my edit summary here and this thread on Qwyrxian's page. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC).

Changed.
At Hatha Yoga, i just added that it's hindu origin, along with a valid source. Hope the edit conflict is over now. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BigCat82. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BigCat82 (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

May 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Hindi, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

1RR notice
Your recent editing history at 2020 Delhi riots 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 being blocked from editing&mdash;especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the one-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Additionally, your recent edits have been made to the lead, which is under moratorium. Kindly revert your edits. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In my official capacity as an Administrator I have reverted you. Please don't touch the lead again until we lift the moratorium on editing it. Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 10:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller

I need one clarification. As you have informed that the lead section of 2020 Delhi riots is under moratorium, does this moratorium apply to the infobox as well? I want to make a correction in the infobox regarding duration of riots. Can I make edit right away or should I discuss the matter at talk page first? -Yoonadue (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As a matter of course for this contentious article, probably discuss first. Remember the infobox needs to be sourced in the article. Doug Weller  talk 11:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 10:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yoonadue, please note the specific editing restrictions for the 2020 Delhi riots article, which are listed in the edit-notice and also at the top of the article talkpage. Your recent edits violated those restrictions and repetition will lead to blocks/topic-bans. You are welcome, of course, to propose changes on the talkpage and try to establish consensus. Abecedare (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nayanthara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Nayanthara check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Nayanthara?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS
The sources that are considered reliable for Indian film related articles can be found at WP:ICTFSOURCES. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: This ICTF list pertains to articles of Indian movies not BLPs of actors. Neither Santabanta.com nor Samaa TV appear in the list of blacklisted sources. -Yoonadue (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indian film-related articles include films and actors/directors/crew members who participate in them. If you want to establish the reliability of a source, request for comment at WP:RSN. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Tarek Fatah. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry and thanks for pointing out. I mistakenly wrote something on article which was meant for talk page. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me be clear, you recent edits violate wp:npov and (I would argue wp:undue). As such I do not see why we need this, and thus no re-write was needed. I suggest you make a case at the talk page as to why we need this, and why is is not a NPON or weight issue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:brd and then the next time you are reverted rather the reverting the revert go to the talk page and make your case.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Is following wp:BRD only my responsibility? You have reverted me so many times but never initiated the discussion on talk page. The BRD page reads : "This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks." -Yoonadue (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes as it Bold REVERT discus.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You challenged content on the grounds there was only one source, yet here [] you use another source and even quote it. This is dishonest and if you pull something like, this again I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

When we say "India contradicted something", we should be keep in mind what is India. India and Indian media aren't synonymous. Until and unless the Indian Government, Indian Armed Forces or other known Indian authorities state anything through official statement/tweet/press release, we can't say that India said this.

This is not the first time I have questioned the authenticity of this contradiction-related statement on talk page. I raised the matter last year here but it went unnoticed. --Yoonadue (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Odd as I can see it being noticed, and objected to.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read wp:editwar, very carefully. as it does not have to be over 24 hours.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This is your last warning, if you attempt to reinsert this claim into any lede in violation of NPOV I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You are removing well-sourced content sometimes for wp:lede and sometimes for NPOV; it doesn't seem constructive either. There was a reason that the claim was added in the lede in 2019 Balakot airstrike. If you check the article, it is precisely about Balakot strikes which occured 26 February. Thats why we don't have any section which discusses the retaliatory strikes of 27 February. I couldn't find any other appropriate place where Indian claim of F-16 downing can be put. So, I added it after mention of Indian pilot capturing. --Yoonadue (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What? read wp:lede the lede is not a new paper style leder.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation War
Looks like we are nearing a consensus. Won't you make a comment now? Aditya (talk • contribs) 05:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

December 2021
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Operation Chengiz Khan. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Cipher21  (talk)  10:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cipher21  (talk)  18:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sameer Wankhede
Hello, Yoonadue,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username MPGuy2824 and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Sameer Wankhede, for deletion, because a consensus decision previously decided that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to restore a page deleted via a deletion discussion, please use the deletion review process instead, rather than reposting the content of the page.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion] but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions reminder
You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

mig 21
I suggest you read wp:editwar and wp:brd this has been discussed (and rejected) many times, so get consensus on the talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven is correct. The operational history section is not a place to list every single unconfirmed/disputed kill claim.  Such information is trivial at best. -  ZLEA  T \ C 15:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @: If not operational history, then what according to you is the apt section to add relevant information about Indian claims of downing F-16 by Mig-21. I added it there because it discussed the Balakot skirmishes and also capture of Abhinandan, who was granted gallantry award by India over F-16 kill. As far as disputed nature of Indian claim is concerned, in today's era of propaganda, no country would admit downing of its aircraft by enemy and Pakistan is no different. It has a history of denials. They initially denied that Ajmal Kasab was a Pakistani citizen who killed civilians in 26/11 Mumbai attacks. --Yoonadue (talk) 15:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unverified claims of aircraft kills are made all the time. If the pilot was awarded for the kill, then it may be notable for inclusion in the 2019 Balakot airstrike article, which it currently is.  There is, however, nothing exceptional about this claim that would make it worthy of inclusion in Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21.  If we included every unverified kill involving a MiG-21 in the article, it would quickly become far too long to comfortably read. -  ZLEA  T \ C 15:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The place for this discussion is the articles talk page, where more eyes will see it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

PLease read WP:NOTDUMB. Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked
This is an alt account of User:Dympies, who has been placed under an indefinite one-account restriction, per this AE discussion. This account has been blocked indefinitely to enforce the restriction. This is a logged arbitration enforcement action, with appeal info available at Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)