User talk:Abhidevananda

WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles. Thank you.--Cornelius383 (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Vedanta Philosophy: An address before the Graduate Philosophical Society

The DYK project (nominate) 00:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to respond at AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Obdurate lack of cooperation from User:Abhidevananda. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Progressive Utilization Theory. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• 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.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -Location (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no disruption. The article is under construction. A template was inserted by Garamond, describing the article as a mere stub. So, as you have chosen to impose this primitive version of the article, I am merely adding appropriate templates and questions to help you improve it. If you want to write this article, you are free to do so. But as I am also interested in this article, I want to see that it is done right. --Abhidevananda (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at 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 will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

You have already been notified of this informally before ([1]): per assessment of the members of Arbitration Committee ([2]) Progressive Utilization Theory falls within the purview of WP:ARBIND. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 06:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Progressive Utilization Theory. 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.

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

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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.

• Revision as of 06:12, 20 March 2013 [3]
• Revision as of 05:51, 20 March 2013 [4]
• Revision as of 04:20, 20 March 2013 [5]
• Revision as of 05:53, 19 March 2013 [6]

You know better. Garamond Lethet
c 06:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)