User talk:76.90.160.66

November 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Talk:The Buddha, 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 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. IDB.S (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I didn't use bad words. I didn't act rude. I didn't make things up. I did nothing that should make you react like this. Most of my post was asking questions. Can you explain to me where in Wikipedia rules does it say not to ask questions. One of the reasons for this section is for disputes, so someone disputes something, they should be allowed to ask questions then. 76.90.160.66 (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

There is way to ask questions. Your way is not the right way ask questions. -- IDB.S (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Your first post was to say that I was not constructive. And then your second answer was to say to look at the rules. And now your third answer is to say I did nto ask in the right way. Do you see a pattern? You gave me no facts, no examples, no points, and nothing like that.....all you did was give me vague broad things. And all this shows me that you are not interested in anything that the other side is sayhing. And you are just using your power to have things the way you want. And you are hiding behind the old "Hey you did something wrong and here are the rules if you want to know what you did wrong" routine............this is one of the reasons I stopped coming to wikipedia, and stopped donating, and stopped trying to edit pages to help wikipedia, and all of that, becuase of people like you...........or hey...........maybe you didn't read any of my disputes, and you're just assuming I must have done something wrong, because we know that you people who control things are never wrong in antyhing. 76.90.160.66 (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

First of all 1st, 2nd comments are pre made comments usually use to warn users about disruptive editing. Second you comment about the matter one time & that's ok. BUT you don't need to comment in the top of the talk page or comment it until you get a reply. That's not how Wikipedia works. You have the right to comment about what you think and just wait until peoples reply to it. Also changing old comments is not the way of telling what you think need to be changed. Lastly your first comment is still live we didn't remove it. We only remove your repeated comments. Please read WP:TP before commenting. -- IDB.S (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know they are automatic replies? And even though they are automatic, it still doesnt change the fact that in those first two replies they were just vague, and broad, and offered no fact, and no explanation. But ok lets ignore the first two replies since they are automatic. What about your third reply? You're just skipping over that. In your third reply, the one that was not automatic, it was vague, and broad, and had no fact, and no explanation. So how do you explain that?.........next.........no matter which reply was real or not, you addressed none of my questions, none of my points, you gave no fact, and you gave no explanation. That is the bottom line. You just erased everything.........now.......you say that I shouldn't erase what people write? I didn't! I never did that. Im not like you. I don't just erase things. But lets say I did. That doesn't mean you have to erase everything I did. You can change the part where something was erased and still keep the part that I wrote. And notice how we are not even trying to solved the actual topic? I am going to assume you dont want to solve anything. I am going to assume you are anti India. I am going to assume you are not fair. I am going to assume you are using your power to have things your way..........and just so you know I predicted all this............before you ever wrote me, I predicted you would ignore everything, address nothing, erase everything, and so on. And you did that..........if you really wanted to solve the issue you would address things........I would write what those things are, but what's the point? You're just goign to ignore everything, and erase everything...........so all I can do is keep things simple and let you know, that it should say "Buddha was from Ancient India." Now if you dont want to do that, and you want a compromise for the anti India people then, then it should say "Buddha was from Ancient India, in what is now Nepal then." 76.90.160.66 (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Buddhism. 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. IDB.S (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

---