User talk:Hbanm

Welcome!

Hello, Hbanm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Shiva did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Introduction to referencing
• Help pages
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  Adakiko (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello, I'm Chronikhiles. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edits seemed less than neutral and have been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chronikhiles (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Hello, I'm Chronikhiles. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 07:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Citing sources before you proceed with further editing on this website. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 07:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hello, I'm GMH Melbourne. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bakshi Ka Talab have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not unconstructive edit,I reverted my own edit so that can revert previous edit done by anonymous user who vandalised the article. Hbanm (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hbanm: That was oversight on my part. I am so sorry ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

What is the word you mentioned, didnt understant me, I first time create wiki to contributes Hindu deities as authentic information in equally, i especially interested in science. If you think this was a mistake, then plz oppolize me, dont comment ugly. User : Cosmology dreamer 09:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)> Sockpuppet[reply]

If you are not a sock then that word was not for you and you shouldn't feel offended and if you took it on yourself and this is the first time you have created account then I am sorry for using hard language,please don't vandalise pages by removing sourced information and without gaining any consensus on the talk page. Hbanm (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

im devotee of vishnu, Im right to add in wiki, i never add sectarian bias, i also auto confirmed user, you have no rights deleted my edits, i never and didnt edit any vandalism. I edit only as per source, there is no need for consensus, before reverted, first check what i added word and its source.

why you targeted on me, i add only reliable source. First check it. Vishvarupa is theological form and affiliation to vishnu, but why you remove it.

@Hbanm User : Cosmology dreamer 09:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)> Sockpuppet[reply]

First of all not a single edit of yours have source, and do you even know meaning of sectarian bias? Vishnu is considered as ultimate reality only in Vaishnavism not in all sects then why are you adding that in Infobox? Wikipedia is a neutral platform. And regarding Vishvarupa its just a form of Vishnu, Infobox is for important information.If you want to edit neutrally do it with reliable third party sources not primary sources and gain consensus on talk page. And stop messaging me unnecessarily explaining your biased edits. Hbanm (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is necessary added vishvarupa to affiliation,

when added Nataraja (cosmic dancer) to shiva, i added only per source, atleast revert or add a Vishvarupa to vishnu.

Its imporatant theological source to vishnu and in vaishnavism, i made so much work for creating wiki new account in first time, without talking you remove the imp word, very pain for me, Nataraja is very simular to deity shiva, like wise vishvarupa is important to add to affiliation for vishnu even in vishnu wiki page never describe about vishnurupa,

when whole bhagavd gita and mahbharata says about supreme form of vishnu, i.e, vishvarupa (universal being).

Revert or add that important word “Vishvarupa” to affiliation

Kindly request from hari bhakta

@Hbanm

I kindly request to you, plz add this word, i never edit wiki in any sectarian bias. User : Cosmology dreamer 11:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you plz shut up, i follow wiki rules and

i add necessary info based on wikipedia neutral point, not from sectarian bias, dont test my patience, i am vishnu bhakt, i m right to edit page, you have no right delete my edit, only extended confirmed user can reverted on my edits, plz stop ,dont target me. This is last warning for you.

@Hbanm User : Cosmology dreamer 14:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)> Sockpuppet[reply]

September 2024

Hi Hbanm! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Jagannath several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Jagannath, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sockpuppet account whom I am reverting, also I have started a discussion on the talk page. Hbanm (talk) 05:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of stable version?

You reverted the changes on Rama with that comment. Riteze (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't remove information like that, if you want citation that bad for the common information too just go to the article Lava (Ramayana), copy the citation and paste it here. Don't do POV pushing on the articles. Hbanm (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No POV was pushed, but the obviously true information was placed.

Even if it is a common information, it was not logical that a kind hearted person shall abandon his pregnant wife bearing his own child. The secondary source on the Lava page is acceptable as per the Wikipedia policy. I removed only the uncited portion, but you removed a properly cited text in the process of reverting back multiple edits at a time. Riteze (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too believe the same but to publish something on wikipedia you need reliable sources, if you have reliable third party sources you can add any information you want. Moreover that "they lived happily for 12 years before exile" thing you added, I don't think that it so important to be added in the article. Hbanm (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not so important to be added in the article? Riteze (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it serves no purpose. Can you tell what purpose does it serve after being added to the article? Hbanm (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose it serves is to assert that, Rama was not an ordinary person. (An ordinary person generally gives birth to children.) Riteze (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rama was an extraordinary person and he had two sons. Central text dedicated to him says so. Who told you extraordinary people don't have children? Krishna was also extraordinary person and he had sons too. Shiva too have children. You say Rama didn't had sons, give the reliable sources for your extraordinary claims and if you don't have them stop vandalising the articles. End of the discussion. Hbanm (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this information obvious?

Your last edit in Kusha (Ramayana). Riteze (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Lava and Kusha being sons of Rama is not obvious then I don't know what obvious means to you. Hbanm (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As they were born from the womb of Sita, Sita is their mother. This is obvious. Riteze (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are sons of Rama and Sita, it's clearly mentioned in Uttarakand in Ramayana, if you have reliable sources which say otherwise you can change it and if you don't have sources then stop asking for citations for generic information on every article. End of the discussion. Hbanm (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How did you categorised this as generic information? Uttarakand do mentions about birth of Lava and Kusha, but it doesn't mention the name of their father. Riteze (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vinayvinyill, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. The above is the standard advisory warning for amending talk page comments, but it applies equally to SPI reports (and would to noticeboard comments, etc.). NebY (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or alter legitimate talk page comments from other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vinayvinyill. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. NebY (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood what I was doing, I just added another sockpuppet account of Vinayvinyill under SPI report filed by you, is that something wrong?. Should we file a new investigation report everytime even if open SPI investigation report already exist. Hbanm (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was very wrong. You made it appear that I was reporting a second editor and that the text of my report applied to them. I did not report that editor, I am not reporting that editor, and I have no opinion on whether or not they are a sock. If you wish to claim they are a sock, do so yourself. Do not ever put words into someone else's mouth and make it appear that they are claiming something. NebY (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sorry for that. Hbanm (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Devi Bhagavata Purana, 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. MRRaja001 ^(talk) 11:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no unconstructive edit from my side. I just reverted the sock edits, also i didn't add anything extra from my side. I think you should check the edit history carefully before accusing someone for the unconstructive edits. Hbanm (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongly placed content.

You have moved the content to wrong position in your last edit on Rama. Riteze (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you did. Stop changing information according to your POV. Hbanm (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No POV was pushed. Please read the quoted citation properly. The text you transported into it is nowhere mentioned in the quoted source. Riteze (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POV

If your repeated edits in Hanuman are not your personal POV, then why are you not letting the other users revert the change(s)? Riteze (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other users, there is only you with your nonsense POVs. Hbanm (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the only one, 483 users are watching this page. Please understand that you are pushing your POV by removing the requests for reliable citations. Riteze (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, gain the consensus on the talk page for your nonsense POV and I will let you add this, let's see how many so called "other" users also want the same nonsense as you. Hbanm (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I neither have any POV related to this, nor I want to push any and please avoid using unnecessary and irrelevant words in your conversations. Riteze (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So stop crying regarding mythology articles not following the rules of science and not seeming right according to your logic. Go and edit science and technology related articles if you love science and logic so much. Hbanm (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted the texts to be properly cited, so I had to offer contrary views in order to encourage citation of the existing texts. Riteze (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You harmed Wikipedia.

You increased the length of the lead section without adding much value to it in your last edit in Kusha (Ramayana). Riteze (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't come on my talk page, go to the article's talk page and gain consensus if you want to change the lead. Hbanm (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I didn't increase its length. I just restored the consensual version. Hbanm (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything appears vandalism to you.

As per most of your reversion comments in recent times. If you are not removing any cited content or adding any uncited text, it shouldn't be termed as Vandalism. Riteze (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that you have again vandalised the articles related to Ramayana without reliable sources and without gaining consensus on the talk page. Let me revert them first. Hbanm (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to act on feelings. Facts should be checked before making any change.

It is you who has vandalised a properly cited sentence here without checking the facts. Riteze (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop blabbering on my talk page justifying your every unsourced and POV edit, always provide the reliable sources for the edits you've made if you don't want your edits to be reverted. Hbanm (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided a single reliable source in your 120+ edits, all you have done is to change the articles according to your POV without the sources or cry about the unnecessary citations. Hbanm (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are never unnecessary on Wikipedia. No POV was pushed in the "reader visible" content. Riteze (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary reversion.

A lot of formatting has been damaged and a number of links have been removed in the last edit Riteze (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I requested a protection for Kusha (Ramayana) to prevent disruptive edits and administrators denied it by telling to resolve the dispute on the talk page. As I don't want to get involved in useless discussion on the talk page, I am out of it now. My job is done, do whatever you want with the article, I won't revert any edit on that article now. Hbanm (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind gesture. I'll also be not touching that page for some days due to busyness on विकिपीडिया which needs a plethora of improvement. Riteze (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

provide logical reason for deletion. Can't use vandalism as reason in my edit. explanation needed.

I see that you have deleted my edit regarding the term "Bhagavan Uvach", which is actually helping to establish the previous trailing sentence of "swayam Bhagavan". Sage Veda Vyas used the term Sri bhagavan uvach (in Bhagavad Gita) for Sri Krishna only and not for anyone else, establishing the fact of Bhagavan swayam of previous sentence. Vyas, the sage who wrote Vedas, Puranas, Mahabharata, Srimad Bhagavad. Have you read these scriptures? I gave link to a video which provide exact description to the term Bhagavan Uvach. Previously RegentsPark advised not to put inline link thus I cited the link, rest was fine. Why you deleted this supporting sentence and what's vandalism here? I have undone and this edit should be accepted for supporting the term "Swayam Bhagavan " of previous sentence. Or you need to delete the previous sentence as well asking for reference of "swayam Bhagavan ". Why the previous sentence has been accepted and not asked for a reference. I am in fact providing a reference with my edit. Mm0522 (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, "youtube video" is not a reliable source. Secondly, word bhagavan doesn't mean "supreme lord". Thirdly, the content you added doesn't prove anything, "bhagvan" and "svayam bhagvan" are two different things. And last but not the least, you need to gain consensus on the talk page before changing any article's image. Hbanm (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am not the editor of the image. You can do whatever you want with it. I am editor of the text. You should have edited the work of two editors separately so that it's easy to undo the work of a single editor, in case required.

And who says that Bhagavan is not for supreme lord. Give me reference for that! As per you logic what's the term for supreme lord? The term Bhagavan (in hindi) is actually the term for supreme lord or better the supreme personality of Godhead. If you read the "Bhagavad Gita As it is" and Srimad Bhagavad (which you seem not to have read) the term Bhagavan only refers to Supreme personality of Godhead Sri Krishna. Not any xyz spiritual power can be referred as God. They are demigods not God. The God in Hindu culture is only one, when termed Bhagavan i.e. Sri Krishna. And, in support of that I gave the reference of sage Veda Vyas, whose scriptures (veda, purana, mahabharata, bhagavad, bhagavad gita) are authority in Hindu culture. He states Clearly Bhagavan Uvach whenever Sri Krishna speaks and when other demigods like shiva, parvati, Brahma speaks, Veda Vyas ji specifically states Shiva uvach, Brahma uvach, Indra uvach etc. Do you understand something from this? Or you can buy and read the copy to understand the fact.

Now, let's deal with your logic, whether "svayam Bhagavan" and "Bhagavan" are two different things or not. As I have shared the fact with quoting Veda Vyasa's scriptures that he has referred only Sri Krishna as Bhagavan. So if the prior sentence is trying to establish Sri Krishna as Bhagavan with the term "swayam Bhagavan" means he is not any incarnation of God (bhagavan), instead God himself (svayam bhagavan). But because it seems like a contemplation as wasn't having any reference to establish the term "swayam bhagavan" I gave a reference of Sage Veda Vyasa mentioning his scripture and a in depth youtube video which is based on Bhagavad Gita only and contains verses from Veda Vyasa himself. I think there is no harm if a yt video is informational enough to help establish something. I think you should consider my edit, with good intent, as the edit was done with a good intent only to help establish the reference for the prior sentence. video links are also acceptable

Tell me, if I can help you more with facts. Mm0522 (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term for "Supreme god" is "Parabrahaman". Secondly Krishna is considered as "supreme god" only in "Vaishnavism-Krishnism" not in any other sect and that too not entirely, he is considered as "Supreme god" in only some of the sub-sects of "Vaishnavism" as majority of "Vaishnavites" consider Vishnu as "Supreme Being" . Krishna is not considered "supreme god" in Vedas, infact there is no mention of Krishna in Vedas. Bhagavata Purana is a Vaishnavism text in which Krishna is "supreme being" which is mentioned in the article. Regarding term "Bhagavan Uvach" it only means "Lord says" not "Supreme lord". And regarding the "Bhagavat Gita" thing, there are many other gitas in which different gods are supreme beings, e.g. "Ganesha" is "supreme being" according to "Ganesh Gita", "Shiva" is "supreme being" according to "Ribhu Gita" and so on. And no "youtube video" cannot be counted as reliable source, provide third party reliable sources to support your claims. Also Krishna is an "avatar" of Vishnu. Hbanm (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see that you didn't even read the wiki guidelines which says that video links are acceptable. Let me quote, just in case you didn't read There is no blanket ban on linking to user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources.

You need to be neutral, while patroling. Let's keep aside any sect whether, shaiva, shakt, vaishnava, krishnava. Let's keep it aside. Think (and with neutral pov, han?) that the author or Vedas (no sect biased), puranas (on different sects), Mahabharata (not biased), Srimad Bhagavat, Bhagavad Gita when used the term Bhagavan for a specific creature (let's keep it aside, whether its krishna, shiva or even any insect or any xyz), we have to give serious thought, why the author of major scriptures (Vedas specifically, which are backbone in hinduism), the Veda Vyas used the term Bhagavan for a specific identity. We need to consider this fact. Yes, there are many Gitas, but were they written by Veda Vyas (the neutral person)? That is the whole point of debate?

You need to seriously consider, your way of reverting the articles. I gave you the wiki guideline to accept the video links and you are still adamant to go against the guideline, just because you think so. Mm0522 (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavan doesn't mean "Supreme god" and Krishna is not considered "Supreme" in Hinduism. Nor he is addressed as "Supreme" in any hindu texts other than "Vaishnavism texts" and that too partially. Not a single Purana of any other sect consider Krishna as "Supreme", even Vaishnavism puranas don't, they consider Vishnu as supreme majorly. Krishna is one of the 24 incarnations of Vishnu in major Puranas. Provide third party neutral and reliable sources for your claims and you are free to add whatsoever you want. Until then your edits will be reverted as unsourced vandalism. Also don't message me or vandalise the article until you come up with a reliable source. Hbanm (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishno Devi

Hey Hbanm, will look through the recent edits though just a quick note/reminder, that engaging in edit warring isn't the best way to resolve disagreements over edits and I'm glad to see you started a discussion on the talk. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for my constructive edits

Well, how great is it that I am blocked from editing as a reward for my constructive edits, the article Vaishno Devi is filled with unreliable sources, you can yourself check that, even the first reference itself is unreliable, without any page no. or whatsoever. I also started talk for this on that article's talk page. That user has been adding the information on that article with unreliable sources for more than a year and edit wars with anyone who tries to improve the article by removing information with unreliable sources. I won't be editing Wikipedia anymore anyway even after the block expires but I wanted to clarify the things before quitting. Also this is not a unblock request. @331dot Hbanm (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one has asked you to quit. If you agree to stop edit warring, and address your dispute on the talk page as well as address other grievances there, I will remove the block. Note that I blocked the other user as well; my only interest is in preventing disruption. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am quitting at my will, I don't need a unblock. Hbanm (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is your option, of course, but no one has asked you to. I've said what you can do to get this brief block ended, but if you don't wish to, that's your decision. Good day. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That a source lacks a page number does not make the source "unreliable"; a page number simply needs to be added. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The page number simply needs to be added" , well I tried to explain the same thing to other user ( you can see that on their talk page and in my edit summary) but they are edit warring instead of adding it. Also the book provided as a reference is a literal translation of sectarian purana, which is not a reliable secondary source. Same is with many references on the article. No page number on any citation, just plain simple literal translation of sectarian purana (which btw is not a proper reliable source in itself), representing view of one particular sect rather then universal one. Also that user has a long history of edit warring and adding information without references or unreliable references, you can see that on their talk page and also on Vaishno Devi article's talk page. Hbanm (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring on Mahavira page

Your recent editing history at Mahavira shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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 demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently made multiple reverts on Mahavira within a short period of time. Please be aware of the three-revert rule, which prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, regardless of the reason.

Violating this rule may result in a block from editing. If you find yourself in a content dispute, please use the article’s talk page to discuss the changes and seek consensus rather than engaging in repeated reverts. Thank you. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change the sourced information and honorifics are not allowed on Wikipedia. Read the Wikipedia guidelines properly before editing. I am not edit warring, you are vandalising the article by changing the sourced information and editing against the guidelines. It's quite ironic that you yourself don't know the rules of Wikipedia and you are giving me the warning for edit warring. Hbanm (talk) 05:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns. Please note that my message was not personal, but a reminder of the three-revert rule and edit warring policy, which applies to all editors, including myself. Wikipedia works through WP:CONSENSUS, so if we disagree on content, the best place to resolve it is at Talk:Mahavira. Tirthankar is not an honorific and the phrase that I removed is repeating exactly as it it below. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tirthankara is a honorific and you can't change the sourced information from the lead itself, if it's repeatitive, change it in the body of the article, not the lead itself. And you are changing the sourced information, so it's your responsibility to gain consensus, not mine. Hbanm (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis you claim Tirthankar to be honorific as the title is present in all other 23 Tirthankars' header pic. The repetition is in the lead itself. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just like "Prophet" is a honorific for Muhammad, "Tirthankara" is a honorific for Mahavira. Just like Krishna and Rama are considered "Lord" in Hinduism but it's believed by Hindus only, thus it is a honorific. And considering repetition, I see no repetition in lead, it says, "Although the dates and most historical details of his life are uncertain and varies by sect" which is not repeated anywhere else in the lead. And Mahavira is considered as "Tirthankara" by Jains is already mentioned in the article. Hbanm (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't addressed the point. Tirthankar is present in all 23 Tirthankars' page, and this is very much a page of Jainism, so it should be mentioned as it gives them a unique identity. I would like to draw your attention to Rishabhanatha and Rishabha (Hindu sage). In these two pages, it is the title of Tirthankar which gives them the identity. Secondly, the essence of the removed phrase is present in the lead. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a page of Jainism only. Mahavira was a historical person and Tirthankara is present in this article too. Adding it anywhere in the sentence before name is considered "honorific". And there isn't any essence present for the removed sourced content, also there is no need to remove sourced content. Since you reported this to administrators, I prefer not discussing it anymore. If you want to add the "honorific" and remove the sourced content, gain the consensus on the talk page Hbanm (talk) 06:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating same lines does not add any substance. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any repetition, quote the repetition, if it's there. Hbanm (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2025 (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#Mahavira. Thank you. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]