User talk:Pawapuri Winds: Difference between revisions

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Dantidurga did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the “Save” button.
Thanks! Janan2025 (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me Janan2025! Pawapuri Winds (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pawapuri Winds! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Microorganism and marked it as “minor”, but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, “minor edit” refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Remsense 🌈 论 23:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thanks for pointing out. Actually the next edit which I made was supposed to be minor. Will keep in mind. Thanks. Can you kindly share with me how to access Sandbox for testing and creating article? 🙂 Pawapuri Winds (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see WP:OVERLINKING. Remsense 🌈 论 23:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks’ noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

asilvering (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see a SA history student around here – this topic area needs as much help from trained historians as it can possibly get. Please be very careful to avoid the two subtopics (milhist and caste) until you have become extended confirmed. There are a lot of sockmasters working in this topic area, so that probably wasn’t your first SPI accusation. Stay calm and you’ll get through. Cheers. — asilvering (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest me particular pages which would like me to look into? Thanks 🙂 Pawapuri Winds (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it all needs help, haha. WP:HOI is listed as “inactive”, but that doesn’t stop you from looking through their lists of articles and maintenance tags for something to do. Just make sure you stay away from anything even close to “military history” for now, which might be a bit hard. — asilvering (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will remain focused on religion and philosophy. I see that many editworthy pages are protected and inaccessible for now. Thanks. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’m ChaseKiwi. I just wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the page Parasnath have been reverted because they appear to have added incorrect information. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source, discuss it on the article’s talk page, or leave me a message on my talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Removal of the section and wording relevant to Santhal community was undeclared in your edit summaries. You may have a conflict of interest and have already been advised I note to err on side of caution with respect to social groups…related to India. I apologise if useful content was removed in the full reversion but do note that other articles cover the religious significance of the geographical feature and other authors have been advised that such detail is best in them. You may have a point with use of term salvation but can perhaps best discuss this in talk. ChaseKiwi (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the talk page of the article. Thanks. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WP:DRN for independent advice from more experienced parties as is my understanding of the wikipedia consensus procedure. ChaseKiwi (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, however I wonder consensus on what? I could not find any substantial grounds for the other side. Regardless, continue on the page’s talk-page. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted that you broke the contentious topic rule by not having 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days when you deleted sourced information about another Indian social group on this page on the 16th September despite being warned above. You have also declined mediation. I will in due course ensure the page re-includes relevant sourced information that you deleted. Please adhere to Wikipedia policy on contentious topics. My plan for altering the article on this geographical feature is outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. ChaseKiwi (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ChaseKiwi, we have already talked about this topic a number of time. We had a discussion and I could not find any another supporting your claims. Even on dispute resolution page, you just gave the same long answer without addressing the points raised by me in the talk page. Kindly refrain from disruptive editing. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gujarat, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and Patan. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It’s OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, —DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice tag-team. FYI: Avantiputra is an outstanding editor, you’re a newbie; better take his work serious. Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 07:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but looking at your own past records and biased views wrt. Jainism and in favor of Buddhism, I need not require your advertisement of an account. Thanks. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction** “their own past records”, not yours. I believe we have not interacted before. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have reached WP:3RR at Mahavira. Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 09:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly give an elaborate reason for reverting my edit. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Mahavira, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 19:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been notified in the talk page, stop edit warring. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 19:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are on a platform which does not require any role of ears, even if you are deaf. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE diff. Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 20:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is adding sourced information against this policy? Pawapuri Winds (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop shoehorning inappropriately sourced content into the B article. Additionally this content appears to be WP:UNDUE in this article. JimRenge (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how is it undue. Explain in detail. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop shoehorning inappropriately sourced content-how is it inappropriately sourced?!! The content which I added, is a highly good and scholarly quality commentary of a text which was recited at Sabarmati Ashram of Mahatma Gandhi regulary, as the primary text was composed by his mentor Shrimad Rajchandra. How do you call this undue!? Pawapuri Winds (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Buddhism, you may be blocked from editing. JimRenge (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond how is adding sourced info disruptive edit? Pawapuri Winds (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve been told, just one day ago diff, that the accusation of “vandalism” should not be made lightly. Now you’re doing it again diff. It looks like you don’t understand, or are not able to understand, how Wikipedia works and what it’s aims are; take care. Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 20:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is removing a highly sourced content without explanation not vandalism? This is certainly not a mere good faith edit! Kindly explain the reason of your removal of the information. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already did: WP:UNDUE, WP:PRIMARY. Read those policies. Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 20:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did not mention these policies in edit summary. Instead, you accused me of something unnecessarily. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are scholarly commentaries of traditional primary manuscripts. I am okay with making them short. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have to use academic WP:SECONDARY sources, at the the Criticism of Buddhism, you have to kedp it short, and it has to be relevant. So, not scholastic disputes, but topics like guru-scandals (many!, in western Buddhism), and the role of woman. Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 21:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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 demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page. —Kansas Bear (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already requested for an explanation on talk page for removal of information which I have not got yet. How do you accuse me of edit warring. I have simply added a highly sourced information on Buddhism page, which is being deleted without explanation. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PW, you really don’t get it diff, do you? Take a break, read the basic policies, and then come back. But the way you’re acting you’re almost through the d it already. Joshua Jonathan – Let’s talk! 21:11, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely do not understand how the added info is violation of WP:UNDUE. I am seeking for an explanation for that. Please respond to the suggestion I provided on your talk page to end this long ongoing dispute, if we both agree to remove information which appears biased, undue or one-sided to us. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]