User talk:Gnanvit

Welcome!

Hello, Chetan vit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Yamna culture have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Favonian (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Favonian I had made some changes to article Yamna culture, modifying the dates of the archaeological culture to the accurate ones as per the reference https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/16087. I had taken this step after posting in the Talk page of the said article. But my edit has been reverted unfortunately. Was the reference I gave not adequate or have I violated some other policy of Wikipedia? I would really appreciate a reason for why my edit was reverted.

You did indeed provide sources. Terribly sorry about the revert, which I have re-reverted! Favonian (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Familiarize yourself with above. The above is a notification that there are sanctions on the articles such as Homeopathy, Ayurveda, and others. In short words you will have to be more careful when you are editing these areas and avoid misrepresenting sources, edit warring or any other violations as described at WP:DE. Lorstaking (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Given your edits, across numerous articles where you are using your personal opinion over established reliable sources and engaging in forum-like discussion, I would now recommend you think again if your approach is correct. My Lord (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@My Lord: Please note that I haven't made any changes to the article Ayurveda since my first edit there was reverted almost a month ago. Given that this is the second time you have posted discretionary notices on my page for the mistake of disagreeing with you on the article "Ayurveda", I urge you to reconsider this. Attempt at WP:WikiBullying is not the right way to reach a consensus about anything. (Chetan vit (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC))

Looks like the first one was from Lorstaking, but it certainly is odd. I wonder if I should be expecting a similar attempt on my talk page? *chuckle*--tronvillain (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. In any case, always remember This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date. If someone reports you at an administrator noticeboard or WP:AE then it's of course different... —PaleoNeonate – 22:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Rigvedic rivers

I see that you have already been notified of the ARBIPA sanctions. You need to be careful with your edits from now on. In particular, the surreptitious removal or modification of sourced content that you did on Rigvedic rivers was alarming. If you do this kind of thing again, you will end up at one of the administrator noticeboards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: No, there was no "surreptitious removal or modification of sourced content". I was just trying to improve the article. Also, this is not a sanction warning. It's a notification for editing a sanction-approved article. Please do not misrepresent. (gnanvit (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC))

Ok, no problem if it was an inadvertant mistake. Just remember that all edits are subject to review by other editors. So you want to make it easy for them to review the edits as well as to revert them when necessary. That means, breaking up edits into particular kind of corrections, or edits of particular sections, and keeping contentious edits separate from non-contentious ones. That saves work for you as well as the reviewing editors. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:Thank you for your clarification. I have left the article as it was before, except some corrected links and an added map. (gnanvit (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC))

Read WP:GALLERY before adding anymore galleries. Capitals00 (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Capitals00: Please discuss this on the article page. There is no need to bring this discussion on my user page, as I have not violated any of the MOS:GALLERY policies quoted (gnanvit (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC))

I have reverted your edit, now don't restore your edits again it would be violation of WP:BRD, especially when you are obviously wrong. Read WP:GALLERY again. Text and individual images on the article are enough there. Capitals00 (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)