User talk:125.238.56.91

September 2023
Hello, I'm Schminnte. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Sayer Ji—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Tarthang Tulku. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
Hello, I'm Zac67. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Skylab have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Zac67 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Shadow311. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, John Carver (Plymouth Colony governor), 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Shadow311 (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at John Carver (Plymouth Colony governor). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 07:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Padmasambhava. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Skyerise (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * I thought this was the way it was normally done? Someone trolls you you troll them back like they asked for.  But okay...no problem. 125.238.56.91 (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * When the regular editors of the article repeatedly revert you, you need to discuss and gain consensus for the change on the talk page. You are by your own admission trolling and that is grounds for being blocked. And no: the way things are normally done is detailed at WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss). Skyerise (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Unless you discuss on the talk page, you will continue to be reverted. Skyerise (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure as long as you block the other troII as well. And I didn't "admit I was trolling" I admitted that the other idiot was trolling and I was correcting him.  But I can see how it sounded. 125.238.56.91 (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Padmasambhava) for a period of 1 week for slow edit war. 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 think 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:. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 15:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

January 2024
Please stop. If you continue to insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did at I.S.S. (film), you may be blocked from editing. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence.  Mike  Allen   15:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

But Mike the ISS is a hoax...what on earth could be wrong with me saying so? I don't understand your logic.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Argylle, you may be blocked from editing. ST7733B (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Stop it Mike. The ISS is a hoax...you know it, I know it. What on earth could be wrong with me saying so? How on earth is calling the ISS hoax a hoax, "vandalism"? I don't understand your logic. Why don't you at least try to explain yourself? Also, I didn't vandalize Argylle, I clarified what was unclear. You people/bots are completely insane.

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Skywave. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. — MATRIX! (a good person!)&#91;citation unneeded&#93; 21:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Stating the physical fact is "fringe"? Why? There is no physical "curvature" on the surface of the Atlantic or any other ocean- this is a basic fact of life. Why on earth is saying so, "fringe" and not allowed? The only reason would be that "nonfringe" is defined as "professional lying" or "utter ignorance", and vice versa. If so, fine - but at least be honest?

February 2024
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Monolith (2022 film). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about dude? It was never 63 contenders, it was 62, if that. 61 by my actual count. Jeez...


 * It was an unexplained and uncited change made by an IP editor with multiple warnings, and the original number was per the citation. If you want to add an alternative count, you need to find a source to support it. I have now edited slightly to clarify exactly what the source says. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Funnyfarmofdoom. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to List of adjectivals and demonyms of astronomical bodies—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 16:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Seventeen tantras, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. akidfrombethany! (talk|contribs) 01:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I have absolutely no idea what I'm supposed to have done wrong since you weren't specific at all. Is that better now?

Seventeen tantras
I have reverted your additions to this article which are sourced to a self-published book. Wilkinson cannot be used as a source because his books are self-published. We appreciate your additions, but you must find another source to support them. Skyerise (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Lol, you're joking, yes? You're telling me that every single of the 1,416,384 (as of today) CreateSpace-published books is not a valid source here? And you think this policy is going to work out going forward as more, more and countless more authors publish using this house? I suppose you don't realize that CreateSpace is owned by...Oh who owns CreateSpace again...a small insignificant company...you likely never heard of them...Amazon, or something like that.

Lol..right...so sources published by an Amazon company, are not acceptable for citations.

Please be sure and let me know how that works out going forward. MEanwhile, what if I trawl the 'pedia and collect all the articles that DO cite CreateSpace (and many similar)-published sources? Would you like me to do that? Well...would you? Only if it'd make you feel better about your trolli - sorry, moderation, of course. Because let's not deny it, the Pedia has always celebrated hypocrisy, lies and its other superb values. Anyway, I appreciate your feedback.
 * Hello, IP 125. Please do not make personal attacks against other editors. As this is a school IP, you are probably also a kid. —asparagusus   (interaction)  sprouts!  18:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * No, we are not joking. We require book sources to be vetted and edited by a publishing house, which Amazon does not do. Books published through CreateSpace are specifically disallowed, because they have not been so vetted and edited by someone independent of the author. Read our policy on self-published sources. It's too bad that Chris decided to self-publish, but if he gets those books published by an independent publisher, we can use them as sources. Until that happens, we can't, and if you continue to add material based on them, you will eventually blocked from editing. Please stop. Skyerise (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I called him "Kid" because the username was "Akidfrombethany" - turns out, on closer inspection, that was the last moderator who did the same reversion with apparently the same extraordinary (un)justification, and in fact this guy is "Skywalkerrising" or something like that. My bad - I won't call him "Kid".


 * That's "her". Skyerise (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I never heard a girl call herself "the Kid" before, but that's okay. I for one am glad she's not a "they".
 * Now, this statement "The Reverberation of Sound Tantra (Tibetan: སྒྲ་ཐལ་འགྱུར་, Wylie: sgra thal 'gyur, Skt: ratnākara śabda mahā prasaṅga tantra). This is the root tantra of the Seventeen tantras and focuses on practices related to sound." is simply utterly false.  The text absolutely does not "focus on practices related to sound".  There are a couple of passing references to the same; out of 200 odd pages, probably 1 full page could be said to be devoted to that topic.  The overriding focus of the text is on general understandings of the highest reality, thusness, the Trikaya, visionary experiences, postures, mantra, mudra, and all the general Vajrayana topics with the Nyingthig flavour.  It is quite stupid to allow that comment, unsupported by any pandita's teaching or any citation of all kind, and to lock the page.  Really irresponsible but so sadly! typical of the Peed.  Honestly...you don't know what you're doing. 125.238.56.91 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think 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:. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, per your policy on Create Space and the like, it may be your policy but that fact doesn't make it logical, utilitarian, positive, intelligent, wise or helpful. There are and have been many ill advised and negative official policies of all kinds practiced by all sorts of groups, such as Prohibition, apartheid, and such. Going forward, as alternative and independent media and platforms of all kinds, both electronic, physical, cyber, etc. become more important and influential, it is obviously ludicrous to exclude a vast, burgeoning body of tremendously valuable knowledge, data and information such as the millions of independently produced works of scholarship, literature etc on the unapologetically arbitrary grounds offered. Basically, it amounts to rank censorship, nor more or less. "State-approved sources only", that sort of thing. Some would call it propaganda. Also, there are millions of 'Peed pages that report this and that tidbit, anecdote, claim and declaration without so much as any citations of any kind, let alone robust quality independent publications, far less sources produced by mainstream houses. Also, being published by a mainstream publisher is no guarantee of truth nor of quality, as I am sure you are aware and would not argue. The value of the work lies in its individual merit; your approach is no different to saying "All Sneeches without stars on thar bellies are inferior and not invited to our parties" or "all black people are banned" or "All Jews are greedy, miserly and devious". Extraordinary; lazy; hare brained; counterproductive; in a word, just plain dumb. (In my personal opinion).
 * You're confusing me with another editor. I've never called myself "the Kid". And if you can't keep track of who you are talking to, why should I worry about your opinions? Skyerise (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And it's not "my" policy. It's Wikipedia's policy, and the admins will enforce it. It's not my fault you won't listen to someone with years more editing experience than you. Thinking you know better and should get to ignore site policies is nothing but ego, pure and simple. Perhaps find another hobby? Skyerise (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Im not confusing you with the Kid, I'm talking about "akidfrombethany" who you told me was a girl. I know exactly who you are, Skyrising. Or do you mean that you are a girl? if you can't keep track of who you are talking to and describing, and who I am referring to, should I be worried about your opinions? Explain. Anyway, the propaganda/censorship policy of Wikipedia is absolutely crazy but it's not surprising. Besides,  this statement "The Reverberation of Sound Tantra (Tibetan: སྒྲ་ཐལ་འགྱུར་, Wylie: sgra thal 'gyur, Skt: ratnākara śabda mahā prasaṅga tantra). This is the root tantra of the Seventeen tantras and focuses on practices related to sound." is simply utterly false. The text absolutely does not "focus on practices related to sound". There are a couple of passing references to the same; out of 200 odd pages, probably 1 full page could be said to be devoted to that topic. The overriding focus of the text is on general understandings of the highest reality, thusness, the Trikaya, introduction to Menngagde, overall summary of the Great Perfection, instructions for disciples entering into the path, samsara and nirvana, visionary (mostly visual, not aural) experiences, the nature of the elements, the three vajras  of body, speech and mind, the physical postures, outline of the scriptural canon, descriptions of various deities and tulkus, mantra, mudra, and all the general Vajrayana topics with the Nyingthig flavour. It is quite stupid to allow that comment, that completely incorrectly claims that the focus of the tantra is on "practices related to sound" (it seems like the person who made the comment actually only glanced at the first 10 pages of the text!) unsupported by any pandita's teaching or any citation of all kind, and to lock the page. Really irresponsible but so sadly! typical of the Peed. Honestly...you don't know what you're doing, by locking up the topic with totally incorrect,misleading, false information unsupported by a single citation

or anything. IS that REALLY how your editorial moderation is supposed to work?

Also, thinking all arbitrary policies are correct and useful regardless whether or not they are, and ignoring valid criticism simply because it goes against your company line, and basing your rebuttal on the fallacy-ad hominem type argument of "oh, you're just being egotistical" while ignoring the actual arguments, surely comes directly from the ego, or possibly from surrendering your soul to the devil or more likely some unholy mingling together of those two. 125.238.56.91 (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, this statement found in the article: "They are traced back to the quasi-historical figure of Garab Dorje (who is said to have received them from the Buddha Samantabhadra).[12][4]" is an egregious, fundamental, schoolboy error that is quite untrue; Garab Dorje received the teachings from Sambhogakaya Buddha Vajrasattva,NOTDharmakaya Buddha Adi Buddha Samantabhadra. (There are too many citations for this point to even know where to start, but I can happily share a few if you would like). This is absolute basics..but when I delved in, corrected it, with citation from one of your approved sources, it was instantly reverted - why? You don't want true and accurate information in your encyclopedia? It's quite outrageous that such an important topic is locked and censored, while it is riddled with basic mistakes and inaccuracies. Is that really how your editing and moderation work is supposed to be done?


 * If you're a serious editor, why don't you have an account and collaborate on the talk page, like most serious editors do? I'm not going to encourage your paranoia about censorship by continuing this conversation here, now. I collaborate with named editors who discuss article content issues on talk pages with sources, editors with a commitmment to the project who know how to sign their talk page comments and show some indication of actually having read our policies and manual of style; not IPs who edit war to include material against Wikipedia rules who then rave about how the rules are wrong and how they know better than the community of editors who formed the rules following long discussion. And no, you don't know who I am. Bye. Skyerise (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, your arguments and statements are nothing but lazy, raving "fallacy of ad hominem" variety :ooh paranoid!" People whose aarguments and retorts are nothing but lethargic and unimaginative attempts to insult the person are not particularly valuable or worthwhile, epecially when you meticulously ignore dodge and avoid all the actual points made.  Does that sort of behavior actually make you feel good inside?  Be honest too. Anyway, the point is that the Reverberation of Sound Tantra absolutely is NOT "focused on practices related to sound" which you yourself could find out if you read it or materials relating to it; but the error about Garab Dorje receiving the Great Perfection tantras from Samantabhadra,instead of Vajrasattva as is the actual case, is a far more dreadful, glaring and serious error on that article.  And so naturally you lock it up - even though you know full well that it contains utterly false, wrong and incorrect reporting. Forgive the paranoid rave here, but this is sadly typical of the Peed - it almost seems like the world famous policies you advise everyone study to the letter (even though at the same time you don't want to check that the material you report is actually fair and balanced) advise that articles be as wrong as possible. Then you constantly cadge and beg for people to throw you dollars and cents, playing the poor struggling artist routine...lol. Bye.


 * Your tediousity is tendentiously excessive. Can't you discourse like a peer? Skyerise (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Ten dentures? No maam, you're being excessive. I don't even have one...Anyway, the point is that the Reverberation of Sound Tantra is absolutelyN NOT "focused on practices relating to sound" which you yourself could discover by reading the text or materials reltated to it. Where did the contributor get that idea...it seems like they opened at a random page, read a paragraph and concluded that was the entire "focus" of the whole thing. And yet you lock the article with this utterly false reporting - whch is, even wrose, totally unsupported by any citation! How peculiar - you say that citations from non-PArty Approved sources are unacceptable, and yet you do accept false information that has no citation whatsoever! Surely, even from your peerlessly tedious, excessively indentured viewpoint, you can see the irony and hypocrisy in that. Even worse, you report that "Garab Dorje received the 6,400 thousands Dzogchen verses from Buddha Samantabhadra" - the most basic mistake possible, since it is very well known that Garab Dorje received the transmission of Dzogchen from the pureland into the human realm from Sambhogakaya VAjrasattva,NOT Dharmakaya Samantabhadra. And yet you lock up the aerticle and revert corrections to all this wrong reporting. Is that REALLY what your job is meant to do...are you sure? I suppose you'll say it's in the rules...I haven't read them all. "Must be a few glaring errors in each article just to spice things up".


 * Your latest revert was because you were evading a block by using a different IP address. Any and all edits made by a block-evading user may be reverted to enforce the block. As for content issues, use the talk page of the article to discuss once your block is over. You may find that different schools have differing opinions about the sources of transmission. We include all views, we don't engage is sectarian edit-warring over it. You have yet to provide sources for Vajrasattva being the source of the transmission of the Seventeen Tantras specifically, and you don't get to change sourced material without providing sources to support your changes. If you continue to edit war after your block is over rather than discuss and collaborate on the talk page and get consensus before making changes to the article, you will simply be blocked again for a longer period. This has nothing to do with whether you are right or wrong, it has to do with your behaviour. Skyerise (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Utter nonsense lol now you're just simply lying. "Evading a block by using a different IP address" haha, nice try - why do you want to blatanly lie?  Or are you just that confused and desperate?  How very sad. Please go back, look at the things you're claiming, think about what you said, and then think about it some more. The reason the change was reverted was because of overzealous and uninformed and completely bewildered Peed moderators, which is how they all are, sadly, it seems.
 * Anyway, the point is that the Reverberation of Sound Tantra is absolutelyN NOT "focused on practices relating to sound" which you yourself could discover by reading the text or materials reltated to it. Where did the contributor get that idea...it seems like they opened at a random page, read a paragraph and concluded that was the entire "focus" of the whole thing. And yet you lock the article with this utterly false reporting - whch is, even wrose, totally unsupported by any citation! How peculiar - you say that citations from non-PArty Approved sources are unacceptable, and yet you do accept false information that has no citation whatsoever! Surely, even from your peerlessly tedious, excessively indentured viewpoint, you can see the irony and hypocrisy in that. Even worse, you report that "Garab Dorje received the 6,400 thousands Dzogchen verses from Buddha Samantabhadra" - the most basic mistake possible, since it is very well known that Garab Dorje received the transmission of Dzogchen from the pureland into the human realm from Sambhogakaya VAjrasattva,NOT Dharmakaya Samantabhadra. And yet you lock up the aerticle and revert corrections to all this wrong reporting. Is that REALLY what your job is meant to do...are you sure? I suppose you'll say it's in the rules...I haven't read them all. "Must be a few glaring errors in each article just to spice things up". Wonderful stuff...and then you'll cadge, cajole, beg and attempt to even gaslight or shame your readers every other day into tossing you dollars and dimes, playing the poor struggling artist role...!  Amazing.  No wonder so many people have a severely dim view of the Peedee.  Wickedpedia, Wokepedia, etc. 125.238.56.91 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just another Aussie in a china shop. I think you peed your leg. Skyerise (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing but one more Chinese in an Australian store. And, from the look (and smell) of your pants leg, I guess you pooped your...never mind :)
 * Anyway, I'm curious: why is the Seventeen Tantras article locked? Even if it wasn't full of fundamental errors, there is no need for it to be barred from editing; the fact that you know perfectly well that it contains basic factual inaccuracies, and you shackle it anyway, amounts to...well, a self-soiling exercise which unfortunately deprives the rest of the world the right understanding of things.  Now...go clean yourself up, and please be careful not to upset any window displays. 125.238.56.91 (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)