User talk:Dharmadhatugarbha

Welcome!

Hi Dharmadhatugarbha! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blockquote?

<blockquote>? diff. That's ancient.... Have you edited Wikipedia before, and forgot your password? You remind me of a highly knowledgeable Dzogchen-editor; in case you're the same, welcome back! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've never edited Wikipedia before. And why have you removed my edits on Buddha-nature page? Dharmadhatugarbha (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, what you by incomprehensible in "despite my welcome: incomprehensible"? Too technical? Dharmadhatugarbha (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmadhatugarbha (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matching prevailing styles in article

Please be aware that different articles have different styles. There are several different ways to make citations - some articles use <ref> tags, some use {{sfn}} or {{sfnp}} templates. Some articles use <blockquote> and other articles use {{quote}} or {{blockquote}} templates. You are supposed to match the style existing in the article. If you don't, another editor will take the time to integrate the new content into the pre-existing style. You should not revert these editors - they are doing something you should have taken the time to do correctly in the first place. Skyerise (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just use the visual editor and select the options to format a quotation and reference. In my browser, the quotation is not displayed in a specific block when "quote" is used, but the backend code appears instead; take a look https://imgur.com/a/HceRU92. Dharmadhatugarbha (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't use the visual editor? I fixed your addition to the prevailing style, and then you - without changing the content - changed it back to the old style. That was in no way a necessary edit. Skyerise (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

many quotes from the page of buddha-nature are in the blockquote format. Dharmadhatugarbha (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, other people, maybe even you under a previous username, added them without matching the existing style. But it was 29 using templates to 12 using wikicode, so I converted the wikicode to templates so the article is consistent and now you don't have to count them yourself! Skyerise (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Book titles

Also, in general, book titles should not be linked to Worldcat. Or to Amazon, or Google, or anywhere else unless they are available on Internet Archive. Just include the ISBN and or the OCLC parameters. These automatically make the appropriate links from the correct place in the citation. Wikipedia does not favor one resource over another, so in general, we don't make these specific links from the title. Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links

You also added an external link to Treasury of Lives in the text of the article. No external links are permitted from the text of the article. Even if there is no article on Wikipedia, you must link to the Wikipedia article or leave the link out. External links are permitted only in citations and in the external links section. Please do not add inline external links to article. Skyerise (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Got it. Thx Dharmadhatugarbha (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today I learned that if you add references to your wikipedia edit you should not add references, after all, they can be considered " external links which shouldn't ever be there". Dharmadhatugarbha (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't learn that. You can't link your "references" from the article text, like this. You have to put them in footnotes so they appear in the references section.^[1]

Also, please stop adding material by simply introducing new quotations. The article shouldn't be written that way in the first place - it's bad writing bordering on plagiarism. If you can't explain a concept in your own words, you're not a writer ... The kind of content you are adding, where you essentially say nothing, using blockquotes to introduce all the details, is not the kind of writing we need. If you really want to improve the articles you are editing, you could start summarizing the content of the current blockquotes in your own words so we can start removing the blockquotes we already have too many of.

I'm really not sure you're here to build an encyclopedia. If you're not, well, we block people who pretend they can't understand the rules. Skyerise (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that if I'm referring to someone else understanding on some topic, like the how Nyingma views Buddha-nature, I can't use my own definition, I have to explicitly quote someone. Is that plagiarism? Just look over that any wikipedia article. there are many quotations out there. Moreover, even the passages that I wrote using my own words have been deleted, even upon the appropriate reference from were that understanding has came from. Dharmadhatugarbha (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I literally add just one full quotation and used the same words that one author did to express. If i quote, there is "over-quotation"; if I don't, it's plagiarism. Dharmadhatugarbha (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Dharmadhatugarbha (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I said. It is not plagiarism if you summarize a quotation. It's borders on plagiarism that the article is like a quilt composed of quotations, instead of being written by our editors. So don't add any more quotations. That's all. Find some other form to present the information you want to add. Write bloody paragraphs. With no quotations. Or is that beyond you? Skyerise (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders if you actually know anything about the subject, or if you just have some opinion of it that you can express by cherry-picking quotations and arranging them in a certain order. Skyerise (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, when you make some bad edits and some good edits all mixed together, it's not the responsibility of other editors to figure out how to keep the good edits and remove the bad edits. Some editors will do this if they have time. It's more usual that all the edits will be reverted, and the editor will explain why in their edit summary, or on the talk page, or on your talk page, like I am doing, to explain what the problem is. It's not just me - multiple editors have problems with your edits. When you pretend you don't know what we're talking about, we have to wonder why? It just seems evasive. There are a lot of poorly written articles full of quotations on Wikipedia - that's not a reason for making more. If multiple regular editors of an article don't want more quotations, that's reasonable. Once an article gets too much quotation, it will have an {{overquotation}} maintenance tag added to it. Many of the articles in this topic area got that way in the past, and intentionally had their number of quotations reduced to a reasonable level. Now we don't want more; the quotation level is where we want it. And we're telling you that, so you can take a different approach. It's not all that difficult. Skyerise (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ like this

TL;DR

Please write paragraphs
Please don't rely on quotations to make your points
If you do 1 & 2, you don't have to worry about whether to use templates or wikicode, because there will be no long quotations
Please don't add clickable external links in the text of the article body
Please DO put external links in your citations (when needed) in the references section and those between ref tags
Please take the concerns of other editors seriously, without being flippant in your responses.

I think that about covers it. Skyerise (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Buddha-nature, 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 your 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. Skyerise (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sor, I've just written the bloody paragraph you required. What's disruptive about it? Dharmadhatugarbha (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You keep changing things that don't need to be changed, like the formatting of blockquotes, everny time you add things. Just add the thing, don't mess with the formatting of multiple blockquotes at the same time. Look at this diff? Why are you making all those unnecessary changes? It's nearly impossible to tell what you actually changed. Skyerise (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making these changes by myself. I definitely wouldn't go through all quotations to change their format. Apparently this is something done automatically by the visual editor, as I told you before

[1] this

[1]