Jump to content

Talk:Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Venkateswara Temple, Tirumala/Archive 1) (bot
Atmnn (talk | contribs)
→‎It is: new section
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 37: Line 37:
There is strong evidence to support the claim that Tirupati Balaji was once a Jain temple..the edit made by me does not explicitly say that it's a Jain temple or ont but it surely initiates a national conciousness to reach to the depth of the history [[User:Atmnn|Atmnn]] ([[User talk:Atmnn|talk]]) 19:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
There is strong evidence to support the claim that Tirupati Balaji was once a Jain temple..the edit made by me does not explicitly say that it's a Jain temple or ont but it surely initiates a national conciousness to reach to the depth of the history [[User:Atmnn|Atmnn]] ([[User talk:Atmnn|talk]]) 19:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
:{{re|Atmnn}} As you've already been informed, your provided sources are not reliable and therefore not "strong evidence". Please read [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:HISTRS]] on what constitutes a reliable source. Considering that you've been blocked twice already, this might be your last chance to conform to Wikipedia's policies. I highly recommend that you self-revert your latest edit.—[[User:Cpt.a.haddock|Cpt.a.haddock]] ([[User talk:Cpt.a.haddock|talk]]) <small>(please <u>ping</u> when replying)</small> 19:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
:{{re|Atmnn}} As you've already been informed, your provided sources are not reliable and therefore not "strong evidence". Please read [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:HISTRS]] on what constitutes a reliable source. Considering that you've been blocked twice already, this might be your last chance to conform to Wikipedia's policies. I highly recommend that you self-revert your latest edit.—[[User:Cpt.a.haddock|Cpt.a.haddock]] ([[User talk:Cpt.a.haddock|talk]]) <small>(please <u>ping</u> when replying)</small> 19:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

== It is ==

FUCKK OFF ASSHOLEEE [[User:Atmnn|Atmnn]] ([[User talk:Atmnn|talk]]) 13:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:56, 21 October 2017

Tirumala as 'Jain' temple

Information that Tirumala was originally a Jain temple was added recently. This is a controversial claim and needs strong references to do so. I neither support nor oppose the claim.

There has been multiple additions and deletions of the same information over the last few days. For the discussion of the same, I have initiated the conversation here. Repeated addition and deletion gets us nowhere. Let us be civil and discuss it here before editing the main page. User:Atmnn User:Edward321 User:Agasthyathepirate ---}- Cyarenkatnikh (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cyarenkatnikh, it is clear that as per Wiki policies blogs cannot be a valid resources and cannot exist in wikipedia. And that too it is controversial claim. And I rollbacked it three times considering it as improper edits and dropped different levels of warning messages to him in his talk page until level 4. He is again and again adding the same content without proper references back to the page even after repeated warnings. And now, he removed citation needed tag added by you and added content back again. It looks like his intentions are clear vandalism/edit war. It would be better to report the user. agasthyathepirate(talk) 12:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True. Looks like we have to spend few mins daily to keep reverting his entries. Any permanent solution to this? Like blocking access to that particular user? Cyarenkatnikh (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried explaining the need for reliable sources on Atmn's talk page, but they do not appear to be listening. Edward321 (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyarenkatnikh/Edward321,Again he added the content back. He got many warnings in his talk page from past and he already got blocked in past but he never seemed to be collaborative. It would be better to block the user either temporarily or permanently. agasthyathepirate(talk) 13:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Any idea how to do it? --}- Cyarenkatnikh (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Atmn is currently blocked again. I suggest attempting to explain things to them on their talk page, rather than adding yet another template. If they start discussing, that would be one way of solving the problem. Edward321 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tirupati Balaji was a Jain temple

There is strong evidence to support the claim that Tirupati Balaji was once a Jain temple..the edit made by me does not explicitly say that it's a Jain temple or ont but it surely initiates a national conciousness to reach to the depth of the history Atmnn (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atmnn: As you've already been informed, your provided sources are not reliable and therefore not "strong evidence". Please read WP:RS and WP:HISTRS on what constitutes a reliable source. Considering that you've been blocked twice already, this might be your last chance to conform to Wikipedia's policies. I highly recommend that you self-revert your latest edit.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is

FUCKK OFF ASSHOLEEE Atmnn (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]