User talk:Pilot2020mi

Welcome!

Hello, Pilot2020mi, and

biographies of living people

must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the

helpme

}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of 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

Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Sitush (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:Plagiarism

Your edits to Women in Hinduism have been reverted as most of it was found to copy-paste from various websites. Please use your own language to present facts in the reference and credit it as a source. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop restoring your edits; come discuss at Talk:Varna (Hinduism)

Hello, and

welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Varna (Hinduism). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page

.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be

three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, your contribution was not acceptable anyway because it was an assembly of copy/pastes from websites such as this. You have already received a warning for this type of behaviour. Please heed it. - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to make edits which you've been told are not suitable, you refuse to explain your edits, and you don't communicate with other editors. Please pause, and come talk to fellow editors on the article's Talk page or on this one, or you will be blocked for disruptive editing. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reported for inappropriate editing

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you.. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an

try to reach a consensus

rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sitush (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have already breached our

reliable sources before doing so: the content that you are adding consists mostly of hacked-together copies from various websites and in particular from forums on those sites. What we need is content written in your own words and supported by sources that have some credibility, eg: books published by academic presses that have been peer-reviewed and written by people of some standing. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

File:Yes

The Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision
" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures

, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Islam in India, you may be blocked from editing. Transcendence (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an

proper page

. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Furthermore, considering you have consistently edited in a disruptive fashion, I am also imposing a topic ban. For the next six months, you are prohibited from making any edits across all namespaces (i.e. everywhere on Wikipedia) regarding any religion in India.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 19:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]