User talk:Conspiracyofjoy

Can somebody translate the previous message into plain English. I have no idea what it means, and no idea why I’m blocked from editing

March 2019[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Steve Dickson, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please make sure to use appropriate formatting for references. A guide can be found here. The editor also has a "Cite" tool to help with this. Also, please use straight quotation marks in articles. Thank you for you contributions! DpEpsilon ( talk | contribs ) 09:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]

Reread the above. We don't use bare URLs for citation. You have to match the existing style in the article. I've reverted your additions to Luminous mind. Read WP:CITE and learn how to cite properly. Skyerise (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the choice of receiving some personal advice from someone knows how to do it in the context of this article, or reading 12000 words of abstruse instruction, I'd prefer the former. Conspiracyofjoy (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given your apparent affinity for terseness, you might be just the person to give me an abbreviated summary? Conspiracyofjoy (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have time to educate you. If you don't have time to read, don't write. Time for official warnings. Skyerise (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: we really don't need the Tibetan everywhere a Tibetan word is mentioned. If there is an article on the word or concept, we just link to that article, and put the Tibetan in the lead sentence of that article. If there's not, then the Tibetan should only go on the first mention. There are also specific templates for adding the Tibetan - it's not just typed in in parens. Skyerise (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your one piece of advice. Look at the article you are editing and do it the way it is done there. If you see a citation like this "<ref>{{cite book|author=B. Alan Wallace|title=Contemplative Science|publisher=Columbia University Press|year=2007|pages= 94–96}}</ref>", then make your citations the same way. If you see a citation like this "{{sfnp|Godwin|Chanel|Deveney|1995|pp=92-97}}", then make your citations like that. With this method you have to add the full citation in a very specific form to the listed 'works cited' or 'sources'. If you don't do it right you won't get links that work or create pop-up displays. You really have to read about how citations work. Skyerise (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, if you really need somebody to hold your hand, then go to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user and find someone who actually likes to do that. Okay? Skyerise (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you human, or silicon? It's becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish. Conspiracyofjoy (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not human, thanks for noticing. I'm an Asura, more specifically an Aditya. I've also become an Arya. Nice to meet you. Skyerise (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a son of the sun? That must be fun. I don't see many of them around these parts no more. Waxed feathers and elevated intentions take their toll, I suppose. Self-admitted āryas, though, are a dime a dozen (despite their being a contradiction in terms). In any case, it's been odd to meet you. 'Nice' I reserve for a different category of exchange, but we could work in that direction. Conspiracyofjoy (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll tell you, it's simply not true that Devas and Asuras can't reach enlightenment. Otherwise Garab Dorje wouldn't have bothered teaching them Dzogchen. I understand Mercury (or should I say Budha), still practices; though the rest of his students seem to have forgotten - or been replaced since then. No, the only reason most of the Devas and Asuras fail to become even Bodhisattvas is merely lack of interest, not impossibility... Skyerise (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact the Budha —whose quicksilver, mercurial mind, scintillant like foil shook and sprung from soma’s womb— is to Buddha as the moon is to the sun.

Although Chandra, the radiant orb of night whose serene face, held aloft in limpid skies and ornamented by a garland of stars, appears as lit from within, in truth her silvery demeanor is illusory and contingent. Fleeting and deceptive, her light a mere reflection borrowed from Sūrya, the Seven-Horsed Maker of Day.

The brightness of the Sun (‘tis said by some) waxes and wanes with gathering clouds, the drawing of dusk, the breaking of dawn, and the infernal plumes of Sapien’s so-called ‘industrious’ stacks.

But those whose minds, like Garab Jé, have merged with space attest, Bhāskara’s stainless rays (Drime Özer) pervade the infinite expanse (Longchen Rabjam), never to set.

Any and all appearance of shifting light and shade is due to the limitations of worldly perspective alone. There is no ‘skyerise’ in the Clear Light Great Perfection.

The Moon, on the other hand, is powerless to shed her cooling rays unless celestial conditions align. The essential cause of her apparent brightness -the light of the sun- is dependent on physical alignment in space and the lack of obstruction on behalf of the dense orb of Earth. That being the case for world-illuminating Soma, what need is there to speak of her offspring, Saumya (Mercury)?

Those who perchance sip the alchemist’s draft, imbued with the starry rays of night, then stumble forth into morn wild and bleary-eyed, and blathering about veils rent: take heed!

Soma and her enticing sisters offer a taste of Truth but their bitter draught, though it may linger on the lingua at break of dawn, in the full light of day lingers no longer but dissipates and disappears.

When amṛta sprang from the churning of the great ocean of milk, suras and asuras fought for the pot thinking it bestowed immortality. But the sages stood by silent, seeing that therein lies a fallacy; how could deathlessness, unborn, ever take birth?

If an in-dividual claims to have reached somewhere from somewhere else (to have awakened what was before asleep) the employ of grammatical tense inherent in the claim belies an incomplete perspective. For the un-divisible Ever-Excellent (Samantabhadra), all talk of up and down, before and after, is drawn in and drowned out by the luminous silence of the scintillant void.

Hence; “Those who know don’t speak. Those who speak don’t know.”

And hence the Buddha’s crafty and Perfectly Transcendent (pāramitā) flapping of tongue for the sake of humans hell-bent on effing the ineffable;

“Subhuti, what do you think? Did the Tathagata realize any such dharma as unexcelled, perfect enlightenment?” The venerable Subhuti replied, “No, indeed, Bhagavan. The Tathagata did not realize any such dharma, Bhagavan, as unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.” The Buddha said, “So it is, Subhuti. So it is. The slightest dharma is neither obtained nor found therein. Thus is it called ‘unexcelled, perfect enlightenment.’” (Vajraccheddikasūtra)

Nice conversing with you, Skyerise. Conspiracyofjoy (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: in regard to in-effing... by so flapping I don't think Buddha intended to encourage incorrigable, profligate flapping, babbling, and twittering which increasingly sends earthly decibel meters spiking (for eff's sake!).

And so, having flapped, I will fly... silently rising into the silent skye... bye!

And may we both enjoy the brightness of the day.

Conspiracyofjoy (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed ‘skyerise’ in complete lucidity. It's all skye ... rise ... rising ... into ... the flight of the garuda ... Skyerise (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skye-ba, mo-skyes, skye ci med pa, ru mgo la skye, mir skye-ba bzen-pa, skye-ba di la, skye-bo, skye-rabs, skye-dgu, skyed-yon, skyed-sgo... Skyerise (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I blocked from editing?[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Conspiracyofjoy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 104.28.38.66. Place any further information here. I’m blocked on both wifi and mobileConspiracyofjoy (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed colocation, despite your claim to the contrary. Please disable your Apple private relay/proxy and wait a full 24 hours, then try again. Yamla (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

“The blocking administrator may be consulted for their comments on your request (this is a common courtesy).”

‘Courtesy’ - I do rather like the sound of that and look forward to the possibility, despite the odds. Conspiracyofjoy (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Conspiracyofjoy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here what the hell is going on? Some bot named blabla has blocked me for a year from editing without warning and without explanation. WTF? Conspiracyofjoy (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your IP is blocked across all Wikimedia projects as a webhost. As noted above, you will need to disable this and wait 24 hours. As it is globally blocked, to address this any other way requires you to contact a steward, please use this page for that. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

October 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm LilianaUwU. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Death have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind telling me what was “Not constructive?”

A tree certainly dies, but it has no brain and thus does not experience brain death. Might you suggest a different phrasing to expand that narrow definition?

When something posing as a scientific definition on Wikipedia is so obviously wrong, I don’t want to experiment in a sandbox: I want to correct it. Especially when it’s a matter of inserting just one or two missing words.

What do you suggest would be a more acceptable intervention in this case? Conspiracyofjoy (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting your reply Liliana. Last thing I want on a public project like wikipedia is to be de-constructive (or is it anti-constructive? or simply non-constructive?). But I can’t for the life of me see how the tree I cut for firewood this morning can’t be called dead. The point being that the definition which I adjusted says that it’s not dead. Trees not having brains. I don’t mean to be a smart-arse, I’m truly curious because it may be that I’m losing more of my logical faculty than I’m aware of. But I’m also aware that the internet is teeming with bots and trolls and automatons of all kinds bent on making trouble for god knows what reason, and I’m not even sure you’re human. It seems entirely possible to me that you’ve been sent by an enemy force to wear me down by minor irritation… so a reply would be good, at your leisure. Accusations of non-constructive seem to me themselves non-constructive if the reason for the accusation is not made clear. Especially accompanied by an exhortation to ‘go and experiment in a sand pit.’

I’m not, just to let you know, an infant. Conspiracyofjoy (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lilian, Still awaiting your reply regarding your earlier message;

“Hello, I'm LilianaUwU. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Death have been undone because they did not appear constructive.” Etc.

I’m still unsure as to what was unconstructive, or whether perhaps you sent the message by mistake? A follow up would be appreciated as I’m at a loss as to what you meant. I tried to write on your talk page, but it’s locked. Unfortunately, modernity is like that: digital attack is easy from behind a firewall.

Best wishes, C

Conspiracyofjoy (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been playing in the sandpit as you suggested, Lilian. I think I’m done with that stage of my new education. Awaiting now your further instructions on how to be constructive. You’ll be glad to know that I took it upon myself, meanwhile, to write out by hand ten thousand times; “I must be constructive, I must be constructive.” Thanks in advance for any future help you can give me in this important matter. Your last advice was super helpful. Conspiracyofjoy (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

? So then ? Conspiracyofjoy (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]