User talk:Livingstonshr

Hello, Livingstonshr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Check out some of these pages:
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

Looking beyond pushing religious inclination to be unbiased

Hi. Your recent contribution to Girnar where you deleted section of Hindu temples was uncalled for. There's a section of Jain temple too. Everyone who has visited Girnar knows that there are many both Hindu and Jain temples and people of both faiths have been visiting Girnar for centuries. Wikipedia is not a place where you would just remove content just to serve a religious propaganda. I have created a topic in Talk:Girnar page where you can find more information. I would advise you to please review it before reverting changes or submitting any edits related to that topic. If you have you want to have further discussion of have any question you can also reach me at my talk page. Thanks. Tannaray68 (talk) 04:05 September 2024 (UTC)

Member_of for categorization in infoboxes

Hi. I saw you reverted my changes at Neminatha and Munisuvrata. The member_of attribute in infoboxes is used for efficient classification. Or essentially means that the subject of the article is part of the said groups. It cannot be added elsewhere in the article. I hope you understand that. ParvatPrakash (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Parvat, thank you for your humble explanation. I would encourage and invite you to collaborate with me and others on History of India and Indian religions pages to have a look on Jain history. Thanks. Livingstonshr (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! I would be honoured to work with someone with any knowledge of Jainism and India's history. Please let me know if you want to find more information or work on a particular subject.ParvatPrakash (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively, please note that articles are meant to represent the viewpoint of the entire body of reliable sources on a subject, and should not give special weight to scripture or other works from antiquity, which are usually considered to be primary sources on Wikipedia. One of your contributions to Jainism appeared to place undue weight on the claims made by one of these primary sources, which should be used in the context of additional research by relevant subject experts. Claims made by these sources should generally be directly attributed, and not repeated in Wikipedia's own voice. Please take a look at Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and neutral point of view, as well as the welcome page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 03:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although Atmasiddhi is a popular book and labelled as scripture by certain individuals belonging to a sect, is neither a scripture not any "ancient work". It is written by scholar Shrimad Rajchandra, barely 150 years ago. Also, could you now make some efforts to explain deletion of bhedvigyan paragraph in the lead, as no citations of any scripture or ancient work were present. Livingstonshr (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the bhedvijnān lead, I preferred not to add citations as the adjacent paragraphs didn't have any either. In the comparison section, being a page on Jainism, it is of utmost importance to present Jainism's precise views these individual philosophical topics. It doesn't seem to violate any neutrality as it was clearly voiced "according to Jainism" and not presented as a universal fact. Would you recommend me to attribute it to the writer instead of Jainism? Livingstonshr (talk) 04:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template's use of the word "ancient" is wrong here, but the fact remains: we do not write encyclopedia articles—which are tertiary sources—based on primary sources, but on secondary sources. Scholarship from 150 years ago also essentially counts as a primary source, as it requires novel reinterpretation and analysis for a modern audience. Please read the policies I've cited above. Remsense ‥ 论 04:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on this, for this very reason I changed the ref to a book written by Dr. Manu Doshi which is a scholarly commentary on Atmasiddhi (from 2008) rather than the Atmasiddhi itself. Will add more citations. Livingstonshr (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jainism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Body. 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) 07:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Warning for 3RR

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ParvatPrakash (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2024 (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. ParvatPrakash (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring were undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thanks. ParvatPrakash (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were put mistakenly. Livingstonshr (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:History of Jainism § Sourced Matter About Akbar's Religious Tolerance

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:History of Jainism § Sourced Matter About Akbar's Religious Tolerance. ParvatPrakash (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC). ParvatPrakash (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Thank you for contributing to the article Doggy style. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]