User talk:CaptTA

March 2024

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Sagarika Ghose. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Shankaracharya and List of Freemasons (E–Z), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Adi Shankara. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Adi Shankara, you may be blocked from editing. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a third-level warning. The next warning is the last; if you misbehave after that fourth-level warning you'll be blocked. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I myself is deep in yo certain topics with knowledge through various ancient scriptures and edit with the external links only those who are in line with original vedic scriptures or books. Most id these Wikipedia are safely not recommended by learned Hindus because there pages are updated with links of those books which have no value even by universities in India, least by any scholar in ancient school of thoughts. Most of the market books were written by those with superficial knowledge mostly based on another such books.

My intentions are to wnrich Wikipedia with trye knowledge acceptable to real time scholars snd universities with aurhentic references and books by authorities not by leftist propaganda based nooks linjs, yhsts the opinion about current Wikipedia literature, sorry to say tnough its only partially true. I would be happy to continue to supoort if unblocked but providing links with scholarrs authenticity, mostly not necessary Wikipedia and promite Wikipedia authenticity.

in latest case as on today 23 April, going back page to change the edit after Wikipedia alert to reconsider the edit, intention was not to loose all that I typed despite of extremely busy schedule so I could copy the content and change it to meet the Wikipedia needs, whereas possible but I couldn't go back to page under edit and got blocked for limitations of systrm in going back to page even when the editor wants to cancel or reconsider edited parts.

If not, I am out of this. Thanks! CaptTA (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As there can be no exception to our policies and guidelines for any adherents to any religion, then it appears that you simply can't edit here if you insist on such an exception. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive editing is an insult to scholarly updates to otherwise leftist rejected by scholars on ancient knowledge and universities across India because the links I provided from scholarly suthentic vedic research and proven knowledge. If Wikipedia wish to keep those unproven books link's just because they were also published then no worries. Most of them do not pertain to authentic books published by Vedic scholars or Ferta press Gorakhpur all of whose books are 100% git the original ssbskrit manuscripts available.

Regards CaptTA (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read Geeta Press Gorakhpur

And 100% Fit the original sanskrit manuscripts....

Typo error CaptTA (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Adi Shankara. Skyerise (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: next, sorry. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

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.

Editing while blocked

Hi, Vishal. Skyerise (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing word is an insult to scholarly updates to otherwise leftist rejected by scholars on ancient knowledge and universities across India because the links I provided from scholarly suthentic vedic research and proven knowledge. If Wikipedia wish to keep those unproven books link's just because they were also published then no worries. Most of them do not pertain to authentic books published by Vedic scholars or Geeta press of Gorakhpur, UP, India and all of whose books are 100% fit the original sanskrit manuscripts available which I have read on lots of subject.

Today, while cancelling the edit after Wikipedia alert page and wished to update the links and contents as per Wikipedia alert, it was sensible to recover the edited contents before Re doing it but system limitations of Wikipedia that after alert, uou loose the contents if you cancel the edit, i tried to back the page and saw the block beyond my sensibilities. Those reference book given under Kush or Kushwaha title page, are fake propaganda of the group leaders itself and doesn't pertain to actual ancient hidtory or scriptural basis and not even current socisl practices. You dir thousands of mile away only acting on technicalities.

I had so much regards to update and help Wikipedia as true knowledge priducer and help in removing current opinion as non authentic sourced page by university, ancient school scholars and helped many editors in sourcing the authentic originsl books since a decade.

Brgds CaptTA (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you are blocked you really should use your talk page only to appeal the block, not complain about Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]