User talk:Realphi

This is Realphi's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jain Denominations (December 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Smirkybec was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jain Denominations and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jain Denominations, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Smirkybec (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Realphi, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Smirkybec (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sister Champa

Hello Realphi,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sister Champa for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

SamHolt6 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Universalizing Religions has been nominated for discussion

Category:Universalizing Religions, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Realphi. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to write articles that don't get deleted

First, you need to gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find that are directly about the topic but not affiliated with it. Sources that happen to mention the topic but are about something else aren't good enough at this stage. Anything at "wiki" in the name (be it Wikipedia, Wikia, Bongwiki.com or something) is pretty much never acceptable. Web engine searches are not sources in themselves, they just provide access to some useful sources (and plenty of garbage sources). Google books is a good resource. Just make sure that any books you cite are not self-published (or from pay-to-publish groups like Lulu.com).

When you get those sources, summarize each of them and add citations to the end of each summary. Then combine citations for overlapping statements. Do not combine sources to arrive at original claims that neither source explicitly makes. Make sure the summaries are like Ernest Hemmingway, short and to the point. If you don't have at least five sentences, you probably need to find something else to write about.

After this, paraphrase the whole thing, keeping the original spirit but fleshing out the writing to be more complete. This also ensures that you don't accidentally plagiarize from your sources.

What you'll end up with is the first revision to post, which establishes the topic's notability. After you've done this (and edited it because mistakes are inevitable), go ahead and cite additional sources (such as ones that mention the topic but aren't specifically about it) to fill out the article more.

Ian.thomson (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Universalizing religion, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Body and Substance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion

I have recently realized that your goal was to use Wikipedia to push particular views. While an encyclopedia should document world religions and notable groups, it should do so by summarizing scholarly sources (WP:RS) and while maintaining a nonpartisan neutral point-of-view (WP:NPOV). Stating that materialism is a religion, that a particular religion is the original, oldest or true religion can only be done by attributing those claims to notable people as opinions, but not in Wikipedia's own voice (WP:YESPOV). There also are many existing articles under the proper terminology which could be improved (in this case, for instance, major religious groups, Jainism, syncretism, etc). Wikipedia is not for promotion (WP:PROMOTION, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). It must simply document what exists and for which there are sufficient reliable sources, in due weight (WP:WEIGHT). Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 10:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signing comments

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JimRenge (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Realphi reported by User:Rhinopias (Result: ). Thank you. Rhinopias (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Religion, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Begoon 03:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Realphi, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Universalizing religion have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm In "How to write articles that don't get deleted" I said to summarize sources and to paraphrase the whole thing, keeping the original spirit but fleshing out the writing to be more complete. This also ensures that you don't accidentally plagiarize from your sources. This is why I told you to do that. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kanji Panth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop marking edits a minor

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright/March 2018

Your addition to Champaben has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. > Also, this isn't the first time you're found to have blatantly copied material from sources, so please be careful. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Digambara Terapanth, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Lars.Dormans (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Psychology, you may be blocked from editing. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by जैन (talk • contribs) 03:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indentation

Realphi, I recommend you look at how to indent messages. Proper indentation makes conversations on talk pages a lot easier to follow. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please sign your comments. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018: blocked

Hi. You have been given many warnings and much advice on this page, including against tendentious editing, and urging you to not add copyrighted text nor unsourced content. You may not be aware that you have this talkpage, since you have continued to do the things you've been warned against. (Or you may have decided to ignore attempts at communication, I don't know which it is.) I have blocked you indefinitely from editing, in the hope that you will find this page, reply to concerns, and start to comply with our policies, especially the policy against using copyrighted text. Please respond below. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 13:11, 20 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Block requested by ONLY ONE follower of rival sect of Digambara Jainism and hence biased. Nobody else has requested block, only given warnings.

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. Yamla (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Will not use copyrighted information

Decline reason:

Procedural close - the unblock template is not a reply button, and multiple requests will not speed up your appeal (or notify anyone) in any way. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:25, 27 March 2018 (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.

I'm not declining this right away, but I'm not unblocking you either unless you:

Explain what sort of edits you made that were disruptive
Explain methods you will use to avoid copyright violations
Explain how you will resolve the other issue this appeal did not address.

Ian.thomson (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

"I think this really pissed off the user when I added these lines in Pravachanasara article without source. 'Pravachansaara is Bible of Kanji Panth' I added this line in Samayasāra article without source. 'Samayasāra is Bible of Kanji Panth' Also, I mischievously linked Samaysara and Pravachansaara links to Kanji Panth. I mentioned that Psychology is 'Spiritual Science' instead of Science without discussion. I added Jainism in list of most followed religion in Religion page without discussion. I added some copyrighted information in Champaben article Some sections in 'kanji panth' require more sources. I am going to add them if I am allowed to edit. On the other hand, I did many good edits. Eg I added Morphological Classification section on Religion Page. I added Samaysara and Pravachansaara books in the list of Jain books as they weren't mentioned there earlier. I properly tagged them as being Digambara Books. I will check the website for copyright notice and will write the information in my own words to not do the copyright violations."

Decline reason:

Procedural close - the unblock template is not a reply button, and multiple requests will not speed up your appeal (or notify anyone) in any way. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:25, 27 March 2018 (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.

Ian.thomson, can you please unblock me? Realphi (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

"will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. Realphi (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

Decline reason:

My goodness. You cannot simply parrot back the general terms for unblocking. You must state clearly what you did wrong and state clearly what you will not do and then state clearly what constructive edits you will make. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2018 (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.

Proposed deletion of Amritchandra

Hello, Realphi. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Amritchandra, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posting from a sockpuppet account's talk page

Hi Realphi,

A few things:

) A lack of adequate sourcing on your part does not mean that everyone else on the site is pushing liberal bias.
) Liberals are not automatically godless eeeebbil satanists out to destroy America, baby Jesus, and our guns.
) When your original account (Realphi) was blocked, that is meant for you as a person. YOU are blocked. That means you're not supposed to create new accounts.

If you want to appeal your block, you need to log in to your original account and address the issues there. Blaming other people will not work. You need to acknowledge that you've made mistakes, explain what those mistakes were (so we know you know what they are), and you need to explain how you plan to avoid those mistakes in the future.

Only then will you be welcome to edit the site again. Until then any other actions you take on the site can be treated as vandalism, no matter how good they are.

If you care about presenting what you believe to be the truth, then you need to go through the hoops. Fighting this is only going to discredit you.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello Admin. I now understand that I should not indulge in Edit Wars and instead try to form consensus on the talks page. I also understand that I should check for copyrights of the material before adding any material to Wikipedia and refrain from using copyrighted material. I understand that I tried to project sectarian point of view in articles related to Jainism without adequate references. I'll refrain from doing that in the future. I think unblocking me will increase diversity of Wikipedia as there are very few Jain Wikipedians and their point of view will enhance Wikipedia. Eg I added morphological classification section in Religion Wikipedia article, one of the most popular and most controversial Wikipedia article, and it was well-received.Realphi (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It appears that the unblock below was accepted. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:09, 6 June 2018 (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.

@Ian.thomson: Sock? what sock? Can't unblock if there's been socking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: see [1] and [2]. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: I am not that Wikipedia savvy. I don't know that socking is not allowed. After Ian.thomson told me not to sock, which is about one month ago, I have not done any socking and patiently followed the official procedure for unblocking.

I think the concern with sourcing edits has been addressed. That leaves edit warring/content disputes and not adding material copyrighted elsewhere into Wikipedia. Please address those concerns. The subtext seems to be that the socking is not a concern as long as it does not recur. As bishonen was blocking admin we need their feedback too.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the ping, bishonen SQL ^{Query me!} 02:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior before the block was very bad, as were the repeated unblock requests. The attitude shown here is bad in so many ways, for instance — apparently warnings are nothing. It's because you ignored the warnings that you were blocked, Realphi. Also, both the "liberal bias" thing, per Ian Thomson, and the socking are alarming. Do you really have to be "Wikipedia savvy" to understand that you're not allowed to simply create new accounts when you're blocked? What would be the point of blocks, if that were the case? WP:CIR may be relevant. But if you're prepared to give a second chance, Dlohcierekim, I won't stand in the way, in view of the diversity point. If you do, I suggest the block log note contain something on the lines of "last chance". Bishonen | talk 08:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, as eager as I am to unblock, I would like to see the edit warring and copyvio addressed. No point in setting the user up for failure through a lack of clarity on the part of the unblocker as to expectations.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Hi Dlohcierekim, I now understand that I should not indulge in Edit Wars and instead try to form consensus on the talks page. I also understand that I should check for copyrights of the material before adding any material to Wikipedia. Thanks ~~Realphi

unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hello Admin. I now understand that I should not indulge in Edit Wars and instead try to form consensus on the talks page. I also understand that I should check for copyrights of the material before adding any material to Wikipedia and refrain from using copyrighted material. I understand that I tried to project sectarian point of view in articles related to Jainism without adequate references. I'll refrain from doing that in the future. I think unblocking me will increase diversity of Wikipedia as there are very few Jain Wikipedians and their point of view will enhance Wikipedia. Eg I added morphological classification section in Religion Wikipedia article, one of the most popular and most controversial Wikipedia article, and it was well-received.

Accept reason:

Last chance unblock per Bishonen. Be aware, though, that unless content elsewhere states creative commons, GFDL or public domain, it is under copyright and cannot be added to Wikipedia w/o total rewrite. Please always use edit summaries and please always cite sources. Of course, sockpuppetry is right out. (If I left out any conditions, anyone, please feel free to list them.) Welcome back.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: Hi Ian, looks like my request for unblocking has fallen through cracks. Can you take a look? Thanks Realphi (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skandha (disambiguation)

Hello. I wonder if you could explain to me the purpose of Skandha (disambiguation) which you've just created? It contains three entries, only one of which contains the word Skandha. I don't see the point of it, so I can only assume I'm missing something obvious. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Skandha (disambiguation)

Hello Realphi,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Skandha (disambiguation) for deletion. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unnecessary disambiguation page.

If you feel that the page shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Natureium (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dharmic religion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Skandha (disambiguation)

The article Skandha (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary (and incomplete) dab page - covered by hatnote at Skandha.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD 16:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Skandha (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Skandha (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skandha (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PamD 22:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Universal religion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JimRenge (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Religion, did not appear constructive and has 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 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. The common name is "Indian religons"; please stop spamming articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Skandha (disambiguation). 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. Natureium (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to find different topics to edit

Editing in the same areas you edited before your block seems to be resulting in the same stuff that lead to your last block.

You might want to try finding different topics in a completely different area of study to work on to get a bit more used to the processes here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Natureium (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can partake in the ANI discussion on your talk page.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for reneging on unblock conditions-- take a week to think it over,. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.

@Realphi: you seem to be systematically making unsourced changes, such as adding text to a disamb page on Dharma and then inserting the same text everywhere with disamb page as your justification. You have been making other serial edits such as changing the term Indian religion(s) found in scholarly literature with Dharmic religion everywhere, regardless of what the sources state. Please do not do so. Your cooperation is requested, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nāstika philosophy

Hello Realphi,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Nāstika philosophy for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Āstika and nāstika, copy-pasted from this article without adding anything.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Natureium (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Natureium (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Theological compatibilism

Hello Realphi,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Theological compatibilism for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Theological determinism, a stub is not needed when there is already an article on this, and this editor has a habit of creating these articles.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Natureium (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-pasting

I am not the first to tell you to stop copy-pasting to create new articles. Maybe you should try improving existing articles instead. Natureium (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Realphi, I noticed the recent back and forth at the template and would like to point you to this RFC on the article talk-page where, after lengthy discussion, the consensus was to include the related Nastika philosophies in the template, (1) following the approach taken by academic works on Hindu philosophy and, (2) as navigational aids. Of course consensus can change but if you wish to remove those links I'm afraid that you'd have to establish such a change, perhaps through a new WP:RFC.

Speaking personally though, I think that would be an inordinate investment of your and community resources for minimal, if any, gains. So I'd advice you to help instead improve the related articles, which is IMO of more direct value to the reader than the presence/absence of links in any accompanying template. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Hello, Realphi. When you moved Jain Agamas to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Jain Agamas" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your move of Jain Agamas has been reverted. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Controversial moves, you must discuss and obtain consensus "before moving any existing page with incoming links to create a disambiguation page at that title". Furthermore, please do not create WP:TWODABS pages unless you can provide evidence of the absence of a primary topic. A disambiguation page is purely a navigational tool, not an end in itself. It should only be created where a hatnote on the primary article cannot provide sufficient navigational information to the reader. bd2412 T 13:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Hello, I'm JimRenge. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Omniscience have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. You were asked to follow WP:BRD. I see no consensus for your changes on the article talk page. JimRenge (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bold-revert-discuss cycle

Hello again Realphi. You seem to pursue aggressive editing when others contest your changes. I urge you to please read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. You also appear to use Wikipedia to push/promote specific ideas, which it is not for (WP:NOT). I have already posted about that before on this talk page and had no answer. If this persists other editors will have no choice but to eventually report you for administration attention, which is probably still avoidable by being careful. —Paleo Neonate – 18:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: Unwritten consensus in wikipedia is : Buddhism is main stream view and jainism is minority view on all the topics and is enforced by brutal majority. In fact, JimRenge explicitly says so in omniscience talk page. "articles should not give minority views or aspects(read jainism) as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.(read buddhism)" Is it wrong if I disagree with this notion?

't gave a hang anout anyone's religious view point. What I do care about is the recurrent bickering and disruption, and the inability to resolve dispues == final warning ==

I unblocked you as a "last chance". Your editing has been spotty since then. If problems continue, I'll have no choice but to reinstate an indefinite (read as permanent) block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim:, just wondering what is the wikipedia policy regarding religious viewpoints? Are all religious viewpoints considered equal or religious viewpoints are discriminated on the basis of numerical strength of that religion? Realphi (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right above that the weight of the content also has to do with the weight in reliable sources. This unfortunately means that if something is virtually unknown, it may not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. This is not related to religious preference, since it is a secular project that should simply dispationately describe them. There are existing articles in relation to Jainism, that is where information relevant to it should be placed. A new article may of course be created if the main article has a section that became so long to be unwieldy, in which case that section can be split and replaced by a summary (and {{Main}} link in the main article). There may also be notable people or events that deserve separate articles if there is enough to say about them in sources.

An important thing is to prevent disruption (editors are not blocked for their beliefs, only for their behavior). Recreating articles that have been deleted or redirected by consensus is not productive. Restoring one's edits when they are reverted, without first achieving consensus on the talk page, can also be considered disruptive. This is all because Wikipedia is a community project. With patience, alertness and consensus seeking and respect, blocks are unlikely. We must of course accept to drop the WP:STICK when we should and move-on to more productive work. I hope this helps, —Paleo Neonate – 03:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Religious viewpoints are irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, not a platform for religious viewpoints. This has been explained to you before. Reliable sources with verifiable information is all we care about. If editors disagree about content they should discuss amongst themselves. Failing that they are to seek dispute resolution and input from other users, via an RfC for instance. I don't give a hang about anyone's religious viewpoint. What I do care about is the inability to resolve disputes and disruption that seems to accompany your edits. And I'm incredibility insulted by what I see as the implication of discrimination. Bullshit! Please reread this paragraph till it sinks in. Please reread PaleoNeonate's (insightful) post until it sinks in. Thanks. @Bishonen:, my life is rather fraught right now, and I haven't time to give this matter the attention it deserves. TBH, I feel like reblocking. If you would be so kind as to look this over, I'd appreciate it. I know you are aware of the background. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim:, "And I'm incredibility insulted by what I see as the implication of discrimination." There is no "implication of discrimination" here. It is a question to an experienced administrator by a novice user who doesn't know the rules. If an administer feels insulted by a user for simply asking a question and then that user is blocked, it is really sad and shows the temperamental problems.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 19:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim:, and this is a very valid question because that was the answer given to me by a supposed more experienced wikipedian when I created "Skandha (Jainism)" page. So, if this is the logic (number of adherents) for mainstreamism and lamestreamism, then "Intelligent Design" should be the mainstream theory and "Evolution" should be lamestream theory. And then, I was satisfied with PaleoNeonate's answer and moved on, but you suddenly freaked out and blocked me. This is not fair. ( Crying ) Realphi (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim:, Also, reversion of edits should not be ground for blocking. As a matter of fact, it is a sign of healthy disagreement and strength of Wikipedia. I have not broken three edit rule. If an edit is not useful, it is reverted eventually by somebody anyway. Realphi (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

Realphi, I have blocked you indefinitely (again). You have received much advice and many warnings, from which you have failed to profit, and even after you started to communicate on this page, you have continued to edit disruptively. After being kindly conditionally unblocked by the tolerant Dlohcierekim, despite having created a sockpuppet to continue editing while blocked, you have continued to make unsourced changes and to edit war and to create work for others in many different ways. You did make a reasonable point when you said in your unblock request in June that "I think unblocking me will increase diversity of Wikipedia as there are very few Jain Wikipedians and their point of view will enhance Wikipedia". But unfortunately the added diversity has taken the form of promoting Jainism, which is not allowed. No promotion is allowed here, which is what you don't seem to grasp, and your posts about the "brutal majority" above don't suggest you're any closer to grasping it than when you first started editing. I don't recommend any more last chances. But you can request unblock in the usual way — I suppose you don't need the instructions again. Bishonen | talk 08:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

December 2018

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Bishonen | talk 00:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Realphi, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

FyzixFighter (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Realphi, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

FyzixFighter (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Realphi, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

FyzixFighter (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 31036

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/31036 is now closed.

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. I am declining your unblock request because it does not fully address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) Thank you for your attention to these matters.

--Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:Champaben2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Champaben2.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 09:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]