User talk:Kingcircle

Welcome!

Hello, Kingcircle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

You might have seen that some of your contributions at Spacetime and Theory of everything have been removed. Wikipedia generally requires independent, secondary sources. It's also best for a high-level page like Spacetime or Theory of everything to summarize information that's described in more detail in specific articles such as Lorentzian manifold or Classical unified field theories. If you want to continue to work on adding text about the periodic relativity idea, I would encourage you to start by looking for secondary sources (such as review papers) that could be used to build an article at periodic relativity. You can also ask for advice or assistance at WP:PHYSICS.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Amble (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your periodic relativity edits

There are two big reasons that we ask for secondary sources such as authoritative review articles. The first is to establish that a topic is notable. The second is to have information that's independent of the subject and unbiased. If someone on Wikipedia tried to write a review article based entirely on the papers you listed, that would not accomplish either of those goals. Therefore, if such secondary sources don't already exist, then the material probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. By the way, if you happen to be the author of these papers, you are strongly discouraged from using Wikipedia as a way to promote them. Wikipedia describes scientific work that's already established. It is not used to promote new or unknown work. --Amble (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add to what Amble said. The purpose of Wikipedia is to describe entities and concepts that already have made a significant impact. New ideas, or ideas that have not yet made a significant impact in academia, are not yet ready for inclusion in Wikipedia. In the context of scientific articles, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE are probably the ones most relevant to you right now, as they describe the thresholds needed for significant mention of non-mainstream views. As for the types of sources that are acceptable, WP:SCHOLARSHIP has a brief description.

Long story short, the publications you've been trying to link would only be appropriate in Wikipedia after a significant number of other academics (in the scientific community, not Wikipedia) decide that they're noteworthy and publish to that effect. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavad Gita

Please read WP:RS, and try to understand the difference between tradtional, religous accounts, and scholarly accounts. Wikipedia represents scholarly accounts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Ramakrishna, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, 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 some test edits, please use the 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! 07:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

@Kingcircle: Please pay attention to @Joshua Jonathan's request above, and stop adding offtopic or 3000+ BCE type OR, as you did in the Ojas and Kapila articles. You can find wikipedia guidelines and helpful suggestions here on how to contribute constructively. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or badly sourced and pov material to Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically you have ignored what User:Ms Sarah Welch and User:Joshua Jonathan have told you and persisted in adding badly sourced material and original research to articles concerning the date of the Kurukshetra war and claims that somehow a mention of writing in the Mahabharata, written down in around the 4th century BCE, shows that writing existed 5000 years ago, long before the Mahabharata was written down. You made the same claim in Bhagavad Gita using a blog and an article in Wikipedia, neither of which meet our sourcing requirements at WP:RS and again ignoring the date when the Mahabharata was written down. You also made claims about the date of the Kurukshetra war using a book on horoscopes and an astrology website and the "Journal Academic Marketing Mysticism". None of them meet our criteria for sources. I see that you wrote at the Kurukshetra war talk page "The correct date of Kurukshetra war is 3139 BCE as explained in (note 1) in the main article." That note not only does not mention 3139, it says "In discussing the dating question, historian A. L. Basham says: "According to the most popular later tradition the Mahabharata War took place in 3102 BCE, which in the light of all evidence, is quite impossible. More reasonable is another tradition, placing it in the 15th century BCE, but this is also several centuries too early in the light of our archaeological knowledge. Probably the war took place around the beginning of the 9th century BCE; such a date seems to fit well with the scanty archaeological remains of the period, and there is some evidence in the Brahmana literature itself to show that it cannot have been much earlier."[8] Basham cites H.C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India, pp.27ff." The article makes it clear that your date is impossible, and other articles should not have dates that contradict the main article. As I've said, this is your final warning. Doug Weller talk 08:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Posting other people's comments to article talk pages

Complaining about other editors ' comments here to article talk pages is not an appropriate use of article talk pages. If you think you have an actionable complaint go to WP:ANI Doug Weller talk 05:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for personal attacks here and disruptive editing. Your posts (and edit warring) on Talk:Bhagavad Gita are completely inappropriate. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, and its articles are not intended to glorify any particular religion (or anything else). Please take on board the advice of experienced editors. If you persist in tendentious editing after the block expires, you will be blocked for longer. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 4 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

no longer necessary Kingcircle (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:24, 5 August 2016 (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.