Paramdeeptung

Paramdeeptung, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Paramdeeptung! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Guru Gobind Singh, appears to have been inappropriate, and has been reverted. Please feel free to use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Your edits broke links, and broke infobox functions. Please stop. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nanded. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

• 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 notice boards.
• 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I raised a general question about your edits at Wikipedia:Help desk#Changing "Died" to "Attained immortality" earlier this afternoon - so far with no (sensible) response.
I am sure the "Ji" is not appropriate as we do not allow honorifics - e.g. we do not allow PBUH after Muhammad - as stated at WP:PBUH

"In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, .... honorifics should generally be omitted from articles .... except where they are part of quotations."

I have more sympathy with your death/immortality change, based upon your belief, however changing "Death date" to "Immortality date" and "Death place" to "Immortality place" in infoboxes means it does not show, as "Immortality date" is not a recognized parameter - Arjayay (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

We have some guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sikhism which includes:-

• In the interest of neutrality, do not use titles and honorifics such as 'Sri' or 'Ji' unless absolutely necessary (for example, Sri Chand is correct, but Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji is not!).
• Limit the use of the term 'Guru'. Exceptions:
  • When introducing one of the ten Gurus for the first time in an article. Subsequently remove the the 'Guru' title.
  • The "Guru Granth Sahib" is always referred to as the "Guru Granth Sahib", never the "Granth Sahib". When referring to the Guru Granth Sahib several times in a short piece of text, it is appropriate to refer to it as "the Granth" (the same applies to the Dasam Granth or any other holy book with the term 'Granth' in the title).

The guidelines do not appear to cover the Death v Immortality issue - Arjayay (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Nanded.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nanded. - Your edit-warring must stop now. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Nanded 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. - Mlpearc (open channel) 18:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I cannot add much to what has already been said above. The way to get policies and guidelines to change is not to keep reverting to your preferred version. You have been given advice on what to do if you want to request changes in the manual of style, but if you edit war until your account is blocked, you will not be able to request such changes. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Signing your posts

Here's a little tip for you regarding edits such as this: sign your comments on talk pages at the end of your posts, not the beginning. See WP:SIG for more details. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Reminding you again of this, if you see it. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

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. Arjayay (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Guru Gobind Singh.

At this point you cannot claim to be unaware of the fact that edit warring is not allowed. When your changes are reverted you cannot simply restore your own preferred version. Wikipedia does not use honorifics, and there is an agreement by the editors involved in Sikhism articles that "Ji" should not be used in every instance. And so on. All this has been explained already, above. bonadea contributions talk 20:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact Wikipedia does not use religious honorifics in articles about Sikh gurus/saints (except in direct quotes), just like it does not use "PBUH" or similar phrases in articles about Muhammad or other important personalities of Islam. Likewise, Wikipedia articles can't contain religious claims stated as a fact. (E.g. Wikipedia can't say that Jesus rose from the dead, but must qualify the statement that it is written so in the Bible and accepted as a doctrine by Christian churches.) See the policy of neutrality. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Guru Granth Sahib. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Nanded. 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.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #16984 was submitted on Nov 25, 2016 07:17:09. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Your Comments

You asked me why you were blocked and no one else was blocked. It appears that you are the only editor who individually went over 3RR. You were editing against consensus. You were blocked because you violated 3RR. I understand that you think that you are right as a matter of faith, but Wikipedia is based on consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to edit Wikipedia, you have to accept that Wikipedia uses commonly accepted terminology, not the terminology of a particular religion. You say that gurus attain immortality, but I assume that you do not mean that they attain immortality in this world. I assume that you mean that they attain immortality in the next world. In that case, I think that even believers will acknowledge that their bodies have died in this world and it is their spirits that are immortal. Catholic Christianity has a class of people, known as saints, who are declared to have entered Heaven in the next world, but we acknowledge that they died in this world. Since Wikipedia is meant to be read by people of all religions, we have to use neutral terminology. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If you have any more questions, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Signature reminder - again

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - And please remember, as you were told twice above at #Signing your posts, the signature comes at the end of your message. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)