User talk:Ek dharmayodha arya

Welcome

Welcome!
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:

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 possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
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. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

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! Crafty (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Phallus, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Crafty (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Stone

Hi! Regarding this edit, I want to inform you that including the views P. N. Oak (whose views are not shared by the majority of historians) goes against WP:UNDUE, part of WP:NPOV - one of Wikipedia's core content policies. In other words, citing Oak in the article Black Stone is completely unacceptable. Gabbe (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Adam's Bridge. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.

Which name to use has been discussed multiple times and the current consensus is to use the name "Adam's Bridge". Please read the earlier discussion on the article's talk page (including archived discussions) if you want to start a new discussion to change the consensus. bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 25 March 2018 (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 notice boards.
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 Adam's Bridge, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 09:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Setu is the real name

Rama Setu is a holy shrine of hindus. It is related to our faith. It's original and authentic name is Rama Setu not Adam's Bridge. All our histories and evidences suggest that for this bridge Rama Setu is more genuine name than Adam's bridge. You are requested not to play with our faith. And give it the title name Ram Setu in the place of Adam bridge. Ek dharmayodha arya (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At present, after many discussions, the consensus of Wikipedia editors is to use the name "Adam's Bridge". If you want to try to change the consensus, go to Talk:Adam's Bridge, read the archived discussions, and start a new discussion (provided you have new arguments and/or sources - repeating the same arguments is not constructive). If consensus changes, the name can be changed, but not otherwise, and you need to make the case, based on Wikipedia policy, on the article's talk page and not here. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 10:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you have to do is read WP:COMMONNAME and show proof that Ram Setu is the name most commonly used in English language sources that meet WP:RS. This is, after all, the English language encyclopedia. The Hindi version uses Ram Setu in its title but also mentions that it's called Adam's Bridge. The Malayan version uses Adam's Bridge. The Tamil version uses Adam's Bridge. You've got a lot of work to do to get all the language Wikipedia's to agree with you, but the point is, there is no reason they should all use the same name. 10:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

March 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Adam's Bridge. Favonian (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Adam's Bridge. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 17:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Adivasi 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: Adivasi was changed by Ek dharmayodha arya (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.878784 on 2018-09-13T21:46:40+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Allahabad— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Allahabad, you may be blocked from editing. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jai Shri Ram, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at List of peace activists, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prayagraj

There are ongoing discussions on Russian, Latvian, Lithuanian and Frisian Wikipedia amongst others to finally change the article's name from Allahabad to Prayagraj.

So please use google translate and write a short opinion, why these Wikipedias should accept the name change and not keep their anti-indian point of view

https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9A_%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E/22_%D0%B8%D1%8E%D0%BD%D1%8F_2020

and on the others it is on the article Allahabad discussion Page, in Frisian you can write English.

I count on you.

--Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]