User talk:Hrishirise

Higgs boson

There is no single particle called boson - it is a class of particles, and this is well explained in boson. This is the same as credit Enrico Fermi for electron, proton, quarks, and other fermions - nobody does that. Materialscientist (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To (talk) As per wiki pedia policy, People need to know what "boson" stands for. Higgs boson, revolves over finding or how to find a type of Boson particle.They all follow Bose-Einstein statistics which made the foundation of what boson means. How can you completely erase that contribution? Just because Higgs discovered a mechanism to discover a particle does not mean, he is the sole owner of it. Its a small key information, where Boson's came from.

Who says it is being erased? It is included on boson, where it belongs. CodeCat (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Higgs boson. 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:

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. Also see the archive Talk:Higgs_boson/Archive_2#Origins_of_.22boson.22_in_article_.28collated_threads.29 NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of conversion section in Hinduism

I meant to add a comment when I reverted your blanking but forgot. I have put my reasons in Talk:Hinduism#The Conversion Section. I can see your point about other religions not having corresponding sections but I believe that over all the section is useful. Please discuss it or raise any concerns on the above talk page. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting third opinion on Brahman

Hi Hrishirise. Could your give your opinion on the definition of Brahman in the lead? See also Talk:Brahman#Lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Hinduism in Sri Lanka into Sri Lanka. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. 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.

— DaxServer (talk to me) 08:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Hindutva, 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! 05:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the text you added contains original research, i.e. conclusions not supported by the sources you are using. Furthermore, the sources are not very reliable, as I have explained. If you continue to add such content, you will likely find yourself with the topic-ban from Indian topics. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User:TrangaBellam has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors multiple times is not good

Once is enough, more might be seen as harassment but you're inexperienced so no problem as long as it doesn't continue. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doug Weller Calling me "Bigoted" is not harassment according to you and that too for providing 10 news sources ? Did you check the whole thread? Hrishirise (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to give you some useful advice about the use of pings. If you don't want useful advice, I won't give you any more. I didn't say you harassed anyone. Doug Weller talk 13:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doug Weller Sorry, I was little confused. Thanks for the advice. But the person https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Joshua_Jonathan called me my edits and ideas as "Bigoted" and has been on a biased edit war. I have done extensive responses to him and their bandwagon. Hopefully, we can let him know too. Hrishirise (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]