User talk:Sathyashraya

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Umayyad campaigns in India. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits doesn't sounds Unconstructive, I have given proper reason in those edits, your continuous vandalism sounds you're not ready for an discussion and remove the sourced information with just your own POV Sathyashraya (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No dear. You just randomly reverted to a version, which had been reverted multiple times by multiple users due to the its contentious nature and to keep it neutral. And the link added to the article, moved to draftspace as it was a synthesis of two deleted articles, this it cannot be kept. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources provided in the article are reliable and there sources for the same that why it should be kept Sathyashraya (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Pangal. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Arab-Chalukya conflict. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Arab-Chalukya conflicts. Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not created by myself, and they are sourced with the sources supporting those events, and there are many articles which neither include in any history books as a topic but are self made as a topic and include the events which can match to it, according to the user himself who is against 'self made pages' Sathyashraya (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Arab-Chalukya conflict, you may be blocked from editing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, The page whether it should be deleted or not should be discussed, I have proper reason and why it should be kept and the sources support the events as shown in the page - Thank you Sathyashraya (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arab-Chalukya conflict for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arab-Chalukya conflict is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab-Chalukya conflict until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user ImperialAficionado clearly mentioned that "no sources either calls this by the name as seen in the title" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab-Chalukya conflict but whether his edits supports this statement or has the user been following it should also be taken into notice, since many of the edits by this user sounds same as he stated which is "no sources either calls this by the name as seen in the title" Sathyashraya (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Battle of Pangal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:CatTheMeow per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CatTheMeow. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]