Hello, അദ്വൈതൻ and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for
your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you can ask me on
my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your
talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "
adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a
WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click
here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the
edit summary field. Happy editing!
Rasnaboy (
talk)
06:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to
Religion in Kerala have 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.
The following is the log entry regarding this message:
Religion in Kerala was
changed by
അദ്വൈതൻ(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.91265 on 2021-06-23T19:39:20+00:00
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to
Religion in Kerala have 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.
The following is the log entry regarding this message:
Religion in Kerala was
changed by
അദ്വൈതൻ(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.958611 on 2021-06-26T12:50:39+00:00
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to
Religion in Kerala have 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.
The following is the log entry regarding this message:
Religion in Kerala was
changed by
അദ്വൈതൻ(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.899758 on 2021-06-28T17:28:26+00:00
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Religion in Kerala. Your edits continue to appear to constitute
vandalism and have been automaticallyreverted.
If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and
administrators have the ability to
block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in
vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few
mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please
read about it,
report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on
your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning:
Religion in Kerala was
changed by
അദ്വൈതൻ(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.956231 on 2021-06-30T09:48:27+00:00
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.
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.
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 articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Varna (Hinduism). 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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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.
Hi അദ്വൈതൻ! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the
edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article
talk pages to try to reach
consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the
dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. —
DaxServer (
t ·
m ·
c)
14:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Hmm I see you have a history of disruptive editing and edit warring. Consider this your final warning. If you still continue to disrupt, you will once again be blocked. Please read the policies linked above and, most importantly, explain your changes on articles' talk pages —
DaxServer (
t ·
m ·
c)
14:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I think this is a clear case of
WP:IDHT. They know how to use edit summaries, so it's not like they're not seeing the multiple people telling them about BRD, taking it to talk, etc. I don't see what this person is adding here other than disruption.
Dāsānudāsa (
talk)
14:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
If you wish to continue on Wikipedia, read
WP:BRD as a matter of urgency to discover how consensus works here. You have been reverted multiple times and now the onus is on you to make a case for your changes and gain consensus on the article talk pages. If you carry on
edit warring you're heading for a permanent block.
Dāsānudāsa (
talk)
09:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Proper citations?
Until you removed it in what seems to have been a "fly-by" tagging, the first para of the
Marriage in ancient Rome introduction was cited to Scheidel, a highly reputable scholar. You also ought to know (as you've been around for quite some time) that the introductory sections of articles are supposed to function as digests of sourced article content in the main article body, and therefore should only be tagged as needing citation if they do not reflect or summarize the main article content. Thank you.
Haploidavey (
talk)
20:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
So I've just been through the entire history of the article; unfortunately, access to versions before 6 April 2017 and previous 10 years or so is no longer possible, due to my own detection of a deeply embedded copyright violation between those dates. There's also been substantial link-rot, affecting online access to that particular version of the Scheidel article, and possibly the Treggiari as well; there are several editions and revisions of each, all with differing pagination. At some point, once I've a space between current rewrites, I'll be rewriting the introduction and main article, using whatever good quality sources are available. Thanks again,
Haploidavey (
talk)
23:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Please re-read the above; it explains how tagging for sources should work. Under the circumstances, your second tagging of the lead sentences in the same article is disruptive.
Haploidavey (
talk)
08:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
April 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
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.
I have made some edits which incorporates your aditions but preserves most of the material that you removed. If you have further issues with the article please start a discussion on the talk page.
★Trekker (
talk)
23:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
Hi അദ്വൈതൻ! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of
Marriage in ancient Rome several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the
edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
Your recent editing history at
Marriage in ancient Rome 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; read about
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
SeanTVT (
talk)
13:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
Your recent editing history at
Marriage in ancient Rome 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; read about
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
NebY (
talk)
17:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I don't understand on what standards the information that I added that too with proper citations doesn't appear to be constructive and is very necessary to be reverted, unless someone has to put up a biased narrative on a living person.
Please remember to
assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Accusing an editor of foul play for reverting your
bold change is not acceptable. Additionally, seek consensus before reinserting information into an article, especially if it contains multiples grammatical issues. Failure to do so can be construed as
edit warring. ~Pbritti (
talk)
13:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
reliability of WS is issue. But if WS made headlines, it is a development. WS isn't used as citations but the headlines the WS made is used
അദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
12:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
0. 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 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.
what a drama Pbritti? You are contradicting yourself.
The one saying 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 this here is belittling the same here
[1] in that article's talk page. Pathetic
അദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
17:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
some one had readded the statement about heliocentrism in Vedic scriptures in
heliocentrism article the subsection of ancient India talks about is
Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres
can you see whether this reference provide is reliable and secondly the reference is based on the work Discovery that changed the world by a person named Rodney castleden who isn't even a historian nor a physicist nor his work isn't even an scientific journal
Myuoh kaka roi (
talk)
13:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Many articles on Wikipedia about scientific/mathematical innovations from India contain unrelated citations, bogus references etc altogether giving false information resulting in heavy tribalism of scientific achievements among the majority Hindu faithfuls(ie., thoughts like India did first, India discovered it first, Ancient India was advance civilisation etc). These entries often combine scientific achievements with Vedic-Hindu ideas, the other stream is from Tamil nationalism, which is unrelated to the former.
For example the wiki page regarding Tamil Numerals in English falsely claims Tamil Numerals used Zero and decimal place value system since beginning, but in reality languages like Tamil Malayalam Sinhala began only to use zero and decimal place value system when they were introduced to their language by the Europeans during colonialism. I am in process is reading the reliable works on it.
Yes you are right, recently I got this same stuff even in
History of botany article in the medieval knowledge section the subsection of the medieval india talks about the statement like
In India, simple artificial plant classification systems of the Rigveda, Atharvaveda and Taittiriya Samhita became more botanical with the work of Parashara (c. 400 – c. 500 AD), the author of Vṛksayurveda (the science of life of trees). He made close observations of cells and leaves and divided plants into Dvimatrka (Dicotyledons) and Ekamatrka (Monocotyledons). The dicotyledons were further classified into groupings (ganas) akin to modern floral families: Samiganiya (Fabaceae), Puplikagalniya (Rutaceae), Svastikaganiya (Cruciferae), Tripuspaganiya (Cucurbitaceae), Mallikaganiya (Apocynaceae), and Kurcapuspaganiya (Asteraceae)
Good that you had edited the ancient India sub section on history of botany same do it for medieval india subsection because it also has questionable claims and secondly they made this website as a reference for the medieval india sub section
The article of
Bhaskaracharya has some questionable reference.In the section of The Siddhānta-Śiromaṇi it mention about motion of planets at instantaneous speeds and also talks about the derivative of sine but the reference given isn't even a science or academic based journal or peer reviewed source but some random website.
Myuoh kaka roi (
talk)
21:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I shall look into it. At present I am preoccupied with Medicine Botany and finding reliable books on Mathematics in India.
അദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
12:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
meanwhile you can mention other such wikipedia pages, sections within articles, and the sentences here in the talk page whose authenticity seems problematic. @
Myuoh kaka roiഅദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
12:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia has a lot of pseudo-sciences originating from India. Most aren't discussed outside proponents of the claim, hence getting a leeway to Wikipedia sans any opposition. For example see the page named
Shatapatha Brahmana under the section Significance in Science. Reliability of each Indian origin publications with such claims needs to be discussed.
Much debated topics like Ayurveda has works underlining the facts that they are pseudoscience.
Nationalist and religious jingoist ideas are very common in Wikipedia.I have also seen majority of it even in mediaeval islamic period where they technical falsly claim stuff that was invented by Muslims.I have no problem of actual scientific contribution did by ancient Indians nor muslims but claiming that their religious text like vedas and quran have scientific knowledge or stuff before modern science only to prove their religious superiority destroys the entire reputation of Wikipedia as a source.Wikipedia is meant for providing sources based on neutral point of view irrespective of any religious community.The main reason why these stuff still exist is because it isn't mainstream like
Evolution denialism or anti vaccination theory.
Myuoh kaka roi (
talk)
22:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Myuoh kaka roi Agreed. In my rough calculation dispunging all such Pseudosciences that originates from India alone which are included in several pages of Wikipedia, requires atleast a year of editing following all the necessary guidelines and policies of this platforms. Not to mention an entire federal government and its system is backing these Pseudosciences(several court cases against Wikipedia has occurred in India, one relating to the Wikipedia's Ayurveda page, a recent one is on the Wikipedia page on ANI). So attempts of reinstating these Pseudosciences will occur again again, hence demands a constant watch on these pages.
അദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
23:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it is better to remove Vedic heliocentrism in
Heliocentrism article since I can't find any other peer reviewed sources and journals backing it.[1] reference which talks extensively on ancient India astronomy doesn't mention anything related to heliocentric and secondly the general consensus among mainstream historians of Indian astronomy is that Indian astronomical systems were fundamentally geocentric, using a non-Ptolemaic double-epicycle model.Nowhere it is mentioned anything related to Vedic heliocentrism if Vedas did consist of heliocentric like concept then it should have been known to astronomers like aryabhatta, varahamira or brahmagupta but all of their models where geocentric.
Myuoh kaka roi (
talk)
16:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
History of medicine
I appreciate your contribution on
History of medicine article but is it required to provide criticism of Ayurveda in this article since even alternative medicinal practices like Chinese traditional medicine and unani don't have criticism and since it is an article about history of medicine it isn't even required to provide the criticism of any particular medical practice since all medicine pratice from prehistoric until the modern period are pseudoscience.Since medicine practiced from ancient egypt,greece,india,china,islamic world and Europe during middle ages are outdated and are pseudoscientific.
Myuoh kaka roi (
talk)
23:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
agreed to since it is an article about history of medicine it isn't even required to provide the criticism of any particular medical practice.
അദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
23:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
^"Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non ... - Google Books" https://books.google.co.in/books?id=kt9DIY1g9HYC&pg=PA317&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, അദ്വൈതൻ and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for
your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you can ask me on
my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your
talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "
adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a
WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click
here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the
edit summary field. Happy editing!
Rasnaboy (
talk)
06:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)reply
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to
Religion in Kerala have 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.
The following is the log entry regarding this message:
Religion in Kerala was
changed by
അദ്വൈതൻ(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.91265 on 2021-06-23T19:39:20+00:00
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to
Religion in Kerala have 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.
The following is the log entry regarding this message:
Religion in Kerala was
changed by
അദ്വൈതൻ(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.958611 on 2021-06-26T12:50:39+00:00
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to
Religion in Kerala have 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.
The following is the log entry regarding this message:
Religion in Kerala was
changed by
അദ്വൈതൻ(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.899758 on 2021-06-28T17:28:26+00:00
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Religion in Kerala. Your edits continue to appear to constitute
vandalism and have been automaticallyreverted.
If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and
administrators have the ability to
block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in
vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few
mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please
read about it,
report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on
your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning:
Religion in Kerala was
changed by
അദ്വൈതൻ(u)(t) ANN scored at 0.956231 on 2021-06-30T09:48:27+00:00
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.
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.
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 articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Varna (Hinduism). 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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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.
Hi അദ്വൈതൻ! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the
edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article
talk pages to try to reach
consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the
dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. —
DaxServer (
t ·
m ·
c)
14:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Hmm I see you have a history of disruptive editing and edit warring. Consider this your final warning. If you still continue to disrupt, you will once again be blocked. Please read the policies linked above and, most importantly, explain your changes on articles' talk pages —
DaxServer (
t ·
m ·
c)
14:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I think this is a clear case of
WP:IDHT. They know how to use edit summaries, so it's not like they're not seeing the multiple people telling them about BRD, taking it to talk, etc. I don't see what this person is adding here other than disruption.
Dāsānudāsa (
talk)
14:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
If you wish to continue on Wikipedia, read
WP:BRD as a matter of urgency to discover how consensus works here. You have been reverted multiple times and now the onus is on you to make a case for your changes and gain consensus on the article talk pages. If you carry on
edit warring you're heading for a permanent block.
Dāsānudāsa (
talk)
09:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Proper citations?
Until you removed it in what seems to have been a "fly-by" tagging, the first para of the
Marriage in ancient Rome introduction was cited to Scheidel, a highly reputable scholar. You also ought to know (as you've been around for quite some time) that the introductory sections of articles are supposed to function as digests of sourced article content in the main article body, and therefore should only be tagged as needing citation if they do not reflect or summarize the main article content. Thank you.
Haploidavey (
talk)
20:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
So I've just been through the entire history of the article; unfortunately, access to versions before 6 April 2017 and previous 10 years or so is no longer possible, due to my own detection of a deeply embedded copyright violation between those dates. There's also been substantial link-rot, affecting online access to that particular version of the Scheidel article, and possibly the Treggiari as well; there are several editions and revisions of each, all with differing pagination. At some point, once I've a space between current rewrites, I'll be rewriting the introduction and main article, using whatever good quality sources are available. Thanks again,
Haploidavey (
talk)
23:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Please re-read the above; it explains how tagging for sources should work. Under the circumstances, your second tagging of the lead sentences in the same article is disruptive.
Haploidavey (
talk)
08:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
April 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
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.
I have made some edits which incorporates your aditions but preserves most of the material that you removed. If you have further issues with the article please start a discussion on the talk page.
★Trekker (
talk)
23:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
Hi അദ്വൈതൻ! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of
Marriage in ancient Rome several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the
edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
Your recent editing history at
Marriage in ancient Rome 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; read about
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
SeanTVT (
talk)
13:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
Your recent editing history at
Marriage in ancient Rome 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; read about
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
NebY (
talk)
17:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I don't understand on what standards the information that I added that too with proper citations doesn't appear to be constructive and is very necessary to be reverted, unless someone has to put up a biased narrative on a living person.
Please remember to
assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Accusing an editor of foul play for reverting your
bold change is not acceptable. Additionally, seek consensus before reinserting information into an article, especially if it contains multiples grammatical issues. Failure to do so can be construed as
edit warring. ~Pbritti (
talk)
13:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)reply
reliability of WS is issue. But if WS made headlines, it is a development. WS isn't used as citations but the headlines the WS made is used
അദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
12:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
0. 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 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.
what a drama Pbritti? You are contradicting yourself.
The one saying 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 this here is belittling the same here
[1] in that article's talk page. Pathetic
അദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
17:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
some one had readded the statement about heliocentrism in Vedic scriptures in
heliocentrism article the subsection of ancient India talks about is
Vedic era philosopher Yajnavalkya (c. 900–700 Century BCE) proposed elements of heliocentrism stating that the Sun was "the center of the spheres
can you see whether this reference provide is reliable and secondly the reference is based on the work Discovery that changed the world by a person named Rodney castleden who isn't even a historian nor a physicist nor his work isn't even an scientific journal
Myuoh kaka roi (
talk)
13:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Many articles on Wikipedia about scientific/mathematical innovations from India contain unrelated citations, bogus references etc altogether giving false information resulting in heavy tribalism of scientific achievements among the majority Hindu faithfuls(ie., thoughts like India did first, India discovered it first, Ancient India was advance civilisation etc). These entries often combine scientific achievements with Vedic-Hindu ideas, the other stream is from Tamil nationalism, which is unrelated to the former.
For example the wiki page regarding Tamil Numerals in English falsely claims Tamil Numerals used Zero and decimal place value system since beginning, but in reality languages like Tamil Malayalam Sinhala began only to use zero and decimal place value system when they were introduced to their language by the Europeans during colonialism. I am in process is reading the reliable works on it.
Yes you are right, recently I got this same stuff even in
History of botany article in the medieval knowledge section the subsection of the medieval india talks about the statement like
In India, simple artificial plant classification systems of the Rigveda, Atharvaveda and Taittiriya Samhita became more botanical with the work of Parashara (c. 400 – c. 500 AD), the author of Vṛksayurveda (the science of life of trees). He made close observations of cells and leaves and divided plants into Dvimatrka (Dicotyledons) and Ekamatrka (Monocotyledons). The dicotyledons were further classified into groupings (ganas) akin to modern floral families: Samiganiya (Fabaceae), Puplikagalniya (Rutaceae), Svastikaganiya (Cruciferae), Tripuspaganiya (Cucurbitaceae), Mallikaganiya (Apocynaceae), and Kurcapuspaganiya (Asteraceae)
Good that you had edited the ancient India sub section on history of botany same do it for medieval india subsection because it also has questionable claims and secondly they made this website as a reference for the medieval india sub section
The article of
Bhaskaracharya has some questionable reference.In the section of The Siddhānta-Śiromaṇi it mention about motion of planets at instantaneous speeds and also talks about the derivative of sine but the reference given isn't even a science or academic based journal or peer reviewed source but some random website.
Myuoh kaka roi (
talk)
21:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I shall look into it. At present I am preoccupied with Medicine Botany and finding reliable books on Mathematics in India.
അദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
12:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
meanwhile you can mention other such wikipedia pages, sections within articles, and the sentences here in the talk page whose authenticity seems problematic. @
Myuoh kaka roiഅദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
12:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia has a lot of pseudo-sciences originating from India. Most aren't discussed outside proponents of the claim, hence getting a leeway to Wikipedia sans any opposition. For example see the page named
Shatapatha Brahmana under the section Significance in Science. Reliability of each Indian origin publications with such claims needs to be discussed.
Much debated topics like Ayurveda has works underlining the facts that they are pseudoscience.
Nationalist and religious jingoist ideas are very common in Wikipedia.I have also seen majority of it even in mediaeval islamic period where they technical falsly claim stuff that was invented by Muslims.I have no problem of actual scientific contribution did by ancient Indians nor muslims but claiming that their religious text like vedas and quran have scientific knowledge or stuff before modern science only to prove their religious superiority destroys the entire reputation of Wikipedia as a source.Wikipedia is meant for providing sources based on neutral point of view irrespective of any religious community.The main reason why these stuff still exist is because it isn't mainstream like
Evolution denialism or anti vaccination theory.
Myuoh kaka roi (
talk)
22:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Myuoh kaka roi Agreed. In my rough calculation dispunging all such Pseudosciences that originates from India alone which are included in several pages of Wikipedia, requires atleast a year of editing following all the necessary guidelines and policies of this platforms. Not to mention an entire federal government and its system is backing these Pseudosciences(several court cases against Wikipedia has occurred in India, one relating to the Wikipedia's Ayurveda page, a recent one is on the Wikipedia page on ANI). So attempts of reinstating these Pseudosciences will occur again again, hence demands a constant watch on these pages.
അദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
23:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it is better to remove Vedic heliocentrism in
Heliocentrism article since I can't find any other peer reviewed sources and journals backing it.[1] reference which talks extensively on ancient India astronomy doesn't mention anything related to heliocentric and secondly the general consensus among mainstream historians of Indian astronomy is that Indian astronomical systems were fundamentally geocentric, using a non-Ptolemaic double-epicycle model.Nowhere it is mentioned anything related to Vedic heliocentrism if Vedas did consist of heliocentric like concept then it should have been known to astronomers like aryabhatta, varahamira or brahmagupta but all of their models where geocentric.
Myuoh kaka roi (
talk)
16:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
History of medicine
I appreciate your contribution on
History of medicine article but is it required to provide criticism of Ayurveda in this article since even alternative medicinal practices like Chinese traditional medicine and unani don't have criticism and since it is an article about history of medicine it isn't even required to provide the criticism of any particular medical practice since all medicine pratice from prehistoric until the modern period are pseudoscience.Since medicine practiced from ancient egypt,greece,india,china,islamic world and Europe during middle ages are outdated and are pseudoscientific.
Myuoh kaka roi (
talk)
23:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
agreed to since it is an article about history of medicine it isn't even required to provide the criticism of any particular medical practice.
അദ്വൈതൻ (
talk)
23:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
^"Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non ... - Google Books" https://books.google.co.in/books?id=kt9DIY1g9HYC&pg=PA317&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Varna (Hinduism). 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.
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:അദ്വൈതൻ reported by User:Moxy (Result: ). Thank you.
Moxy-
02:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
