User talk:Dayanist

April 2020

Your recent editing history at Adam's Peak 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—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 18:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Adam's peak is an alternative name for Sri Pada. This is nonsense, against historical facts. Dayanist (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dayanist reported by User:Amkgp (Result: ). Thank you. Amkgp (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting! Dayanist (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using Wikipedia to push a point

Hi Dayanist,

your behavior at Adam's Peak, and now at Talk:Adam's Peak, is becoming disruptive. Please stay away from the topic and find different areas to contribute, per WP:DISENGAGE.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to use talk. Now, you want me to leave this too. No. I can use talk page. Dayanist (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on Wikipedia

One of your recent additions has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia: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—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is this copyright controversy? Dayanist (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You copied the contents of SAARC Research Grants 2017 onto a talk page. That's a copyright violation. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

😄😄 Dayanist (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SUN EYE 1 13:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- SUN EYE 1 13:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]