User talk:Terabar/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Sitush (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Ingrid Scheffer, 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jan - 2015

Stop inserting nonsense like you have done here[1]. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC) May peace and blessings be upon you Bladesmulti. Tell me what was the cause of removing my edit and calling it non-sense. If you don't agree with someone's point of view then call it non-sense. Be polite my friend. Secondly what makes it non-sense? Terabar (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Written by one non-notable writer who makes up nonsense all time, just read his blog. Other weblink[2] is not working. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should I quote some other source my friend to support that claim? And also recently you changed that Conversions from Hinduism are declining in Buddhism and Islam and not in Christianity and Islam. I can quote from the newspapers that atleast conversions are not declining in Buddhism. Would you agree if I provide a reliable source such as newspaper or Tv News channel? Or would you still stick to your own claim? My friend please be neutral. Terabar (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is Dalits and I have a book citation that says that it is in decline since 1993. You can provide anything that you have. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which book do you have my friend? User:Bladesmulti Tell me. I would also love to read it. :) Terabar (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Hello, I'm K scheik. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Dalit because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. — k_scheik ^{talk to me!} 20:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Dalit

Hello. I noticed that you reverted my edit on Dalit. I undid your edit because it could be interpreted as a generalization, and therefore offensive. It is also unsourced content, and could be therefore classified as an opinion. Thanks for reading. — k_scheik ^{talk to me!} 20:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed : Ambedkar's book

Hi, Thank you for your good comment on my edits to B.R. Ambedkar and his book Waiting for a Visa. I wonder if you could help further expand the wiki on Waiting for a visa? I have already added a short synopsis of each of the chapters, based on readings that I did and citations from other authors. However, this article could do with further expansion, especially on it's history (how Ambedkar came to writing it), its impact and the reason for its chosen name. Could you please help in this exercise? Thanks. Notthebestusername (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Notthebestusername Sorry for replying late. Dear friend, You have done a great work by adding the content and references on both the pages. For that I am extremely thankful to you. I am also of the opinion that you should not merge the article Waiting for a Visa in B.R. Ambedkar. Rather you should keep both the articles separate as it can provide much more information on the subject. I will ask for help from another user User:Deepcruze who I think can help both of us to expand the article. May peace and blessings be with you. Terabar (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Terabar. Notthebestusername (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit war

It is not appropriate to mark a controversial edit as "minor", as you did here at Cārvāka. You know this is at the edge of an edit war here and at Template:Hindu philosophy. I did not revert you at this time because I do not want to further an edit war. Discuss on the talk page. Ogress _smash! 00:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I shouldn't have marked it as minor. It was my mistake. User:Ogress Terabar (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware of canvassing

Regarding your message to The Rahul Jain: read WP:CANVASS. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for your personal opinions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about the opinion of that user. There is nothing wrong in communication with any person. Yes , Wikipedia is not a site of personal opinions. First look into the mirror and read this comment of yours.

"To add a personal note: I've been studying Buddhism and Hinduism for over 25 years now; studying them in combination has helped me to understand both of them better, since they are so closely related." @ User: Joshua Jonathan Terabar (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toucher. Yet, there is a difference in explaining where your interests are, and trying to ease the interaction between editors, versus actively engaging other editors to gain support for your personal opinions. See also WP:NOT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man! When did I ask for any support? You are mistaken. That user User:The Rahul Jain has the free choice to comment or not. And Wikipedia is not a site of personal opinion? Remember? @User:Joshua Jonathan. Terabar (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Rahul is welcome anyway. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Infobox Indian Spiritual leader

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Alakzi (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Hello. I am Diannaa and I am an administrator on this wiki. Please don't upload any more photos that you find on the Internet. Photos that you find online are copyright, and we are not allowed to display them on this wiki. You should ony upload photos that you have taken yourself. Also, prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the law to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. There's more information about copyrights and how it applies to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Copyright law and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policies. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. --Diannaa (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hi, thanks for your nice contribution to Wikipedia. You should not upload images from internet, otherwise you are doing good work at Wikipedia. Keep it up. Thanks again. Human3015^TALK 18:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User: Human3015. Your comment is very much motivating. You are the first person in the whole of my Wikipedia career who appreciated my work. I am very much grateful to you from the bottom of my heart. Wikipedia needs motivating editors like you. Thanks again.

)

Funny allegation

I don't see anything same at all though,[3] you seem to be having a funny "intuition". Actually I was unblocked by a checkuser, after he detected that I hadn't used any other account for over a year. Bladesmulti seemed to have been actively editing when I edited too in 2014. How about you retract your statement that we are socks, or open a WP:SPI and explain your disruptive edits on Talk:Slavery and religion? D4iNa4 (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am always funny for sockpuppets. Before 1 year, weren't you using different accounts? Terabar (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prove if I abused any multiple accounts, it was already confirmed during my unblock request that I never abused any.[4] Looks like you are trying to justify that you are being disruptive, you have joined this year and already attempting to canvass[5], despite warning before.[6] How about making discussion yourself inplace of misusing rollback[7]?

You had been also warned by @NeilN:[8], may I know why you are abusing twinkle rollback for wikihounding my edits? On this page I can revert you, because your revert just violated WP:BLPCAT, many of those names are of living people and none of their articles claims these names to be critics of religion. Stop this disruption. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, source misrepresentation, policy misinterpretation

You have been uselessly edit warring at Template:Criticism of religion sidebar by making blind reverts and you had recently included a hoax at Dalit Buddhist movement, "A Buddhist source claimed that "300,000 Dalits are estimated" to have converted to Buddhism as part of"[9] and you alleged rest of the paragraph to be violating copyrights. You need to stop it now. If you don't have anything better to say on talk page, don't make blind reverts. Capitals00 (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dalit Buddhist movement edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war at Dalit Buddhist movement. 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.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

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.

Also read WP:CV and Wikipedia:Quotations#Recommended_use_of_quotations carefully, small quotations are allowed. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop wasting my time. Just read the Copyright dislaimer from the website which you are adding content. Just have a look have a look at this Copyright Disclaimer. [10]. And Wikipedia:Quotations#Recommended_use_of_quotations does not say to add Copyright quotes. Violation is Violation. And stop wasting my time. Terabar (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2015 (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. Thank you. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your report

Hello Terabar. You broke the link again to the editor's block log. Let me know if you need any assistance. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:EdJohnston, I am not familiar with some technical tools on Wikipedia because I am a new user. It even takes time for me using some strange alphabets on Wikipedia. Thanks for correcting the link. I want to start a Sock-puppet Investigation. I don't know how to do that. But still I am trying to learn. Any help would be highly appreciated. With regards. Terabar (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a pipe symbol that kept your link from working properly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be edit warring. See my offer for how you can avoid a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston, I have clearly stated my intentions on that page. Have you changed your opinion now? Terabar (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Dalit Buddhist movement

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. 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 ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard (permalink). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:EdJohnston , at one moment you told me that I can avoid block if I write that I will try to gain consensus through talkpage. I did write that two times. *See[11].[12]

Now even then you have blocked me. Will you please tell me the reason now that why did you deceive me? This is very insulting for me. You will loose trust of people if you do break promises. Now don't atleast break your promise and unblock me. Best regards, Terabar (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Terabar may avoid a block if they will promise to make no more edits to this article unless they are supported by a prior talk page consensus." You have to WAIT for an agreement, and not edit until then. Will you agree to that? If so the block can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. Now kindly unblock me. Terabar (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed : Ambedkar's book

Hi, Thank you for your good comment on my edits to B.R. Ambedkar and his book Waiting for a Visa. I wonder if you could help further expand the wiki on Waiting for a visa? I have already added a short synopsis of each of the chapters, based on readings that I did and citations from other authors. However, this article could do with further expansion, especially on it's history (how Ambedkar came to writing it), its impact and the reason for its chosen name. Could you please help in this exercise? Thanks. Notthebestusername (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Notthebestusername Sorry for replying late. Dear friend, You have done a great work by adding the content and references on both the pages. For that I am extremely thankful to you. I am also of the opinion that you should not merge the article Waiting for a Visa in B.R. Ambedkar. Rather you should keep both the articles separate as it can provide much more information on the subject. I will ask for help from another user User:Deepcruze who I think can help both of us to expand the article. May peace and blessings be with you. Terabar (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Terabar. Notthebestusername (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware of canvassing

Regarding your message to The Rahul Jain: read WP:CANVASS. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for your personal opinions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about the opinion of that user. There is nothing wrong in communication with any person. Yes , Wikipedia is not a site of personal opinions. First look into the mirror and read this comment of yours.

"To add a personal note: I've been studying Buddhism and Hinduism for over 25 years now; studying them in combination has helped me to understand both of them better, since they are so closely related." @ User: Joshua Jonathan Terabar (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toucher. Yet, there is a difference in explaining where your interests are, and trying to ease the interaction between editors, versus actively engaging other editors to gain support for your personal opinions. See also WP:NOT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man! When did I ask for any support? You are mistaken. That user User:The Rahul Jain has the free choice to comment or not. And Wikipedia is not a site of personal opinion? Remember? @User:Joshua Jonathan. Terabar (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Rahul is welcome anyway. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hi, thanks for your nice contribution to Wikipedia. You should not upload images from internet, otherwise you are doing good work at Wikipedia. Keep it up. Thanks again. Human3015^TALK 18:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User: Human3015. Your comment is very much motivating. You are the first person in the whole of my Wikipedia career who appreciated my work. I am very much grateful to you from the bottom of my heart. Wikipedia needs motivating editors like you. Thanks again.:) Terabar (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Love and wisdom

Dear Terabar, may 2016 be full of love and wisdom! All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take care

Hi Terabar. I noticed you're editing at the Suicide of Rohith Vemula‎ again. Please take care; I'm quite sure you'll get blocked again if you let your temper lead your actions. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your emotions. Thanks for the concern. I have compassion (Karuna) for that guy. Anyway , can you please tell me that where I went wrong this time? Terabar (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you went wrong. I just noticed that you removed some info, which may be a violation of WP:NPOV, while simultaneously re-inserting a contested quote. You'd better done those two edits separately. Also, removing all sorts of criticisms doesn't make your case stronger; on the contrary. Koenraad Elst is rather a sign of weakness from the other side, but the sentence "Many others still questions the importance given to a single suicide when India has students suicide numbers running in thousands" seems quite relevant to me. Anyway, the "Suicide of Rohith Vemula" is quite unclear; it does not clearly tell what actually happened. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User: Joshua Jonathan , As Dr.Ambedkar was against capital punishment so similarly Rohith too was against capital punishment for anyone. He opposed the capital punishment for Yakub Memon who was a terrorist. ABVB, a right wing extremist group called him as anti-national and what not. ABVP has involved itself into many attacks. See Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad#Controversies, attacks and vandalism. Many Ambedkarite websites are contestesting elections on whether do you support capital punishment or not. See Dr. Ambedkar's Caravan . And many right wing politicians don't want to regard or project Rohith as Dalit because UP elections are approaching. UP has many Dalit Voters. BJP will loose Dalit Votes. These are ground level realities. So it began like this. This is a ground level realty which I am telling you and which you won't find on Internet. Best regards, Terabar (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu God Buddha

Few days ago I moved a page Gautama Buddha in Hinduism to Hindu God Buddha Just because of there is no proof in any ancient Hindu texts who proves Gautama Buddha Is an avatar of God vishnu. I studied about that. That name was not suitable in this conditions that's why I changed. Do you please say why you again moved that to 'Gautama Buddha In Hinduism'? --~AbHi ^{Chat Me!! 📥} 14:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Terabar. All or some of your addition(s) to Gautama Buddha in Hinduism has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or 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 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 designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk 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 can, but please follow the steps in 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. This message concerns content you added to the article on June 26. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Terabar. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Your addition to Gautama Buddha in Hinduism 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of SuttaCentral

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on SuttaCentral, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Aoidh (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued disruptive editing

[15][16] You are edit warring for no reason even after being warned a few times for disrupting that particular article. None of the sources say "savior" or "some Hindu followers", and you cannot call anyone to be "popular" when they are already notable. Your explanation that "It's obvious that the writer was referring", I would say keep your personal opinions aside and stick to source.

Your latest disruption is not ending here, you attempted to WP:WIKIHOUND by violating WP:BLP and then went to WP:CANVASS an editor who to help you further with the BLP violation.

I would say stop disrupting right here, you are forgetting why you have been blocked 2 times before. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@D4iNa4: problem solved, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Bhim

I noticed that you made a change to an article, Jai Bhim, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please see also WP:CREDENTIAL. JimRenge (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:JimRenge, thanks for pointing out. I saw my edit. I reverted the user who was removing sourced content and unfortunately I reinserted the content which was also unsourced. So as a whole edit I reinserted the sourced content and and also unsourced content. You have removed it very correctly. If I find some sources in future then I will surely add it. With best regards, Terabar (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. Perhaps it may be helpful for you to know that you take full responsibility for the content you restore with a revert, correct sourcing included (WP:BURDEN). Happy editing JimRenge (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

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. Widr (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User: Widr, I was only reverting the removal of sourced content. Other users have also reverted that user. You can check that in the history of that page. He also violated the 3RR and has reverted other users without giving a valid reason. He also went on wikihounding. Terabar (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you both are edit warring and have been warned now. Widr (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User: Widr Despite your warning he is again removing the sourced content, vandalizing the article and edit warring. Many users have reversed him before. Can you take some action now as he has repeatedly ignored warnings and removed sourced content? Terabar (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2017 (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:Terabar reported by User:Widr (Result: ). Thank you. Widr (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

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. —SpacemanSpiff 09:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was only reverting the removal of sourced content multiple times. At noticeboard it states "Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring;" The only fault that I committed was to revert the vandalism multiple times and was blocked for 3 days. Tender Nuke has been given 48 hours (2 days) block for continuously removing the sourced content and I have been given a 3 day block for reverting his vandalism. Is this fair? I reported TenderNuke earlier two times (1 and 2) but no action was taken. I have only reverted the removal of sourced content and nothing else. You can check the history of that article. Is reverting vandalism a crime on Wikipedia? I hope that you will be just towards me and unblock me. With best regards always, Terabar (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Just because something is well-sourced does not mean that it has to stay in an article. This is a clear case of a content dispute, one that you were warned about and then continued reverting. Now, I'm not saying that your addition is inappropriate in the article. But it's also absolutely not a requirement that it be included, and that makes it a content dispute. I suspect SpacemanSpiff let you off with three days this time around because it's been almost a year since your last block, but most admins would have blocked you for a week this time around. Yamla (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2017 (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 is your third edit warring block, it should have been for longer than 72 hours (which was your prior edit warring block) but I just let it pass. I'll also note that you continued edit warring after posting at WP:AN3. —SpacemanSpiff 10:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terabar, when will you learn to take a break and hold on for a while? Your intentions are good, but you're being led astray by your emotions. Sometimes, you just have to pause, discuss matters, and then take appropriate steps when necessary. Take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User: SpacemanSpiff, thanks for informing me that I could have been blocked for more than 72 hours (3 days). When I was blocked earlier, the two users who reported me were confirmed sock-puppet accounts. You can check that even in block log. See Ekvastra and Capitals. Also, I clearly stated above that the only thing I was doing was to revert the removal of sourced content. Is that my only fault? Is reverting vandalism a crime on Wikipedia? I reported TenderNuke earlier two times (1 and 2) but no action was taken. So is it only my fault that I removed vandalism? I hope that you will be just towards me and unblock me. With best regards always, Terabar (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to unblock you and I don't support an unblock either (but that's a reviewing admin's call), you clearly don't understand what vandalism or content dispute are, both of you were edit warring, both of you were blocked, you for a longer duration because you've made edit warring a habit now. —SpacemanSpiff 11:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing the following as an unblock decline reason, but I was beaten to it. I'll offer it anyway in case it helps:
While I'm sympathetic to you here, I don't feel I can unblock you because you are showing no understanding of what constitutes a valid exemption from the 3RR rule. Reverting vandalism is a valid exemption, but reverting the removal of sourced content is not. Removing sourced content should not be automatically seen as vandalism - it might be, but it might not.
Just because something is sourced, that does not automatically mean it is appropriate for an article and must be retained, and we frequently see sourced content removed validly. Of course, removing it without explanation is not acceptable, but again that does not make it vandalism.
As far as I can tell, this was a content dispute - one editor thought some content should be removed, while you thought it should not. And it should have been addressed by discussion and consensus, and not by edit warring.
If you make another unblock request with a convincing explanation of your understanding of all this, the reviewing admin might unblock you - but you really do need to show an understanding of what is allowed as a 3RR exemption and what is not, and of what constitutes vandalism and what does not. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User: Boing! said Zebedee, thanks for being sympathetic towards me. I am grateful to you for that. I understand that this is a content dispute and not necessarily a vandalism done by another user. I will try to resolve this dispute on article's talk-page and developing a consensus if you allow me to do so. I understand that the dispute should have been resolved through talk page and not through edit warring. So it is requested that you kindly unblock me. With best regards, Terabar (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd prefer it to go through the proper unblock process. So please make another request using the unblock template, below here, and someone will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that this is a content dispute and not necessarily a vandalism done by another user. I will try to resolve this dispute on article's talk-page and developing a consensus if you allow me to do so. I understand that the dispute should have been resolved through talk page and not through edit warring. So it is requested that you kindly unblock me. With best regards, Terabar (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

72 hours after so many offences is not excessive in my opinion. The user tenaciously argues, based on flawed understanding of policy, that he is not edit warring when he restores sourced content to an article. All content needs consensus to remain in the article, and is not immune to removal simply by being sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2017 (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 should note that this is exactly how you got unblocked the first time, sadly, you seem to be treating these as discrete events that aren't connected to each other. Your assurance did not last much longer as you continued to edit war after that, even if not at that article, this behavior has continued elsewhere. It's also no different from what you said last time when Boing! said Zebedee declined the unblock request. While you appear to say what you think people want to hear, it doesn't seem to affect your behavior at all. I also note that EdJohnston alerted you about discretionary sanctions back then, that is applicable even now. —SpacemanSpiff 13:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User: SpacemanSpiff, at that time I even went to the concerned article to resolve the dispute. You can see my edits here. I did what I promised. I even talked about it on my talk page with User: Joshua Jonathan. In today's scenario I was not aware that the removal of sourced content might not be a vandalism. Therefore it is my fault and I accept my fault. Terabar (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Then leave it as it is, try to learn from this, and enjoy your Wiki-break. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry done by Tender Nuke.

User: SpacemanSpiff,

User: Boing! said Zebedee,

User:EdJohnston

User: Yamla,

Now TenderNuke is doing sock-puppetry by editing from a dynamic Ip. See his Sockpuppet edit which he was previously doing from his Id. See ( 1, 2) He is evading the block now. Can you take some action now? Terabar (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. --Yamla (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Criticism of Hinduism. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

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. Favonian (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

User: Favonian, Kindly unblock me to launch a sockpuppet invesitigation against that User:Capitals00 and then you can block me if my report is found wrong. That user has been sockpuppeting from two different ids. He was reported earlier and was found guilty too. Thanks Terabar (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2017 (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. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2017 (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.

You were a sockpuppet and was blocked. This time I want to report you again because I have some evidence. Terabar (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked on the account of edit warring with a user but that user is a sock puppet and he continues to remove edits critical of Hinduism. He was blocked earlier for abusing multiple accounts and edit warring and now he is doing it again. See D4iNA4 and Capitals00 I only reverted his edits in order to prevent disruption. Admins can check that in block log. Further, I would like to tag User: Zanhe who also reported him in sock puppet investigations. Kindly unblock me so that I can launch a sock-puppet investigation against that user and remove all disruptions. If my report is found wrong then you can block me again for two days as I have already beard the block of 5 days out of 7 days. Thankyou. With regards, Terabar (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:15, 9 May 2017 (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.