User talk:Wikiuser2090
Wikiuser2090, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Wikiuser2090! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks also for your efforts to improve the article on Jainism. I would just like to say, however (having reviewed the article at Good Article Nominations) that in general it's best not to add new citations or concepts in the introductory (lead) section, which is meant only as a summary of what is already explained and cited in the main body of the article. The citations ought really to be moved out of the lead, therefore, if you have a moment, and if any of the concepts that you've cited aren't already in the article body, they should be moved out also. The lead must not try to say everything: it's impossible, so it should only be a condensed version of what is already written below. I hope this is clear, and not too inconvenient; I think you'll see it's a sensible and logical approach. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
A summary of some important site policies and guidelines
[edit]- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary.
- "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
- We do not publish original thought nor original research. We cannot combine two sources to arrive at a statement not explicitly supported by either source.
- Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well. This includes religious texts such as the Bible, Quran, Vedas; and (under many circumstances) older commentaries such as the Early Church Fathers or the Hadith.
- Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
- Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.
Ian.thomson (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
May 2020
[edit]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Philosophy, 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. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
DS-alert
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
May 2020
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dharmic religion. 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. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Philosophy 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -----Snowded TALK 21:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
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.