User talk:Experienced Practice

April 2020
There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:Sarva-jnana


The page Draft:Sarva-jnana has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

What is your connection to medium.com/@uread.us ? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! That is an article that I created to refer this subject to, which is a translated piece of a Classic work. Thanks! UreadUs (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

...so you have been promoting your website. Which, now that I have a closer look, seems to spread pseudoscientific spiritual nonsense about the Coronavirus as well. Wikipedia is not for such purposes; please find different websites that accept your spam. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not trying to promote my website. It is a better translated version that I found that I'm just sharing with users. And I have no intention to spam anyone or spread any pseudoscientific spiritual nonsense at all. I understand things are difficult to process, and very seem-plausible. I'm only writing the messages based on the referable classics and my own many years of true experiences. If you don't believe it or have never experienced it, you can test yourself using the method I included in my article. Thanks!

Forgot to mention, perhaps you haven't read or been able to read my intended post about the subject, I also referred it to a famous classic that was linked to an Archived work that was published by UC Berkeley & UCLA. Thanks! UreadUs (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please consolidate your requests into a single request; only one open unblock request is needed. Subsequent comments should be standard, unformatted comments like this one I am making. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks! I'm sorry. As I'm new here, I'm still learning the formatting and everything. I was wondering how to respond to the messages, and didn't realize you can see the comments just by adding unformatted messages below. And I just consolidated them. Thanks! UreadUs (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So you will need to propose a new username that complies with the username policy and is not that of your website. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sure. Will do! Really appreciate it!

Hi, JBW, thanks for your review! As I've mentioned above, I've no intention to promote anything. The link to my posted article was solely a better version of translation of the classic that I collected. I have not thought about promoting my article when I linked to it. I don't have to link it to my own article if that gives people a false image of my intention. This is a topic that I have studied for a while thus I have the knowledge to judge whether it is correct or not. And I'm trying to only quote and refer to the prestigious resources such as the English book at Archive.org published by UCLA,UC Berkeley. Also, as I'm new here, it was my first article, thus, may not completely understand all the rules of Wikipedia yet, and am willing to learn more. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks!

globally renamed UreadUs to Experienced Practice
globally renamed UreadUs to Experienced Practice -- Deep fried okra  User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Really appreciate it, Deepfriedokra! :) Is there any way my permission to edit wiki can be recovered? Thanks a lot! Experienced Practice (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * My intention is solely to make contributions to the general and valuable terms to the whole world, and would cite with references to tell the truth. As I followed the instruction to change my username, your help to recover my editing privilege would be highly appreciated! Experienced Practice (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please let me know if there is anything else to do to help. Thanks! --Experienced Practice (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks ~ Liz and ~ ToBeFree! First of all, I understand your concern and the reasons to block me because of the link to an article that was under my name which I explained the reason earlier. Secondly, Wikipedia from what I understand is an open-minded place to state the fact/terms with references to prove/cite, whether it may sound "insane" or unbelievable. The world is big, and most of us don't know/understand or have experienced everything in the world, including the terms that already exist on Wikipedia such as Theory of relativity. If you learn deep enough about Einstein's theory of relativity and what he had quoted "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.", "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." as well as the awakened people's experiences, you might understand the other article of mine that ToBeFree cited which I was only telling the truth and didn't use/link on Wikipedia. I understand that it is hard to understand these theories, but if you learn enough science you'll know the limitation of our science, which is well-known (you may realize it from here). If you still find it hard to believe or understand, you can watch this video that I included in my article. As I explained earlier, I'm willing to unlink the original article, and the rest of the referred links remain nothing to do with my work but only concepts with references. I'm here to solely contribute my knowledge of terms correctly, no other intentions. Thanks!


 * You were clearly here to publicise your personal views on religious and philosophical matters, and you clearly have no intention of changing that. That is why you are remaining blocked. No amount of trying to explain why your personal views are right will change that; we all believe that our opinions are right, otherwise we wouldn't hold them. Nor will quoting Einstein utterly out of context and trying to represent him as supporting your views encourage us to unblock you; on the contrary, it strongly suggests that you really do not understand, and in that case you probably couldn't change you approach even if you wished to. Interpreting our refusal to unblock you as being because we "find it hard to believe or understand" your views shows a total failure to understand. We may understand and thoroughly agree with your views, or we may understand and disagree with them, but it would make no difference: you are blocked because your intention is clearly to promote a point of view, not because we disagree with the point of view you are trying to promote, or because we are so much below your intellectual level that we don't understand. Editing to promote opinions is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and that is all there is to it. JBW (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

：JBW Thanks for your response! May I know what point of view am I promoting in my deleted draft on wikipedia? Which part of the words is my promoting view besides that link that I was willing to remove/unlink? I'm willing to adjust or delete that part if you point out my words in the draft that is promoting a point of view and not the fact. I'm also aware of other people's religious terminologies on Wikipedia such as Hinduism, Christianity, which I'm sure they have studied and deeply believe in them because otherwise they would not be able to post such terms with so many details in it. Can you say they are not promoting their beliefs? This was why I thought Wikipedia is an open-minded place for all terms as long as they are the fact. As a matter of fact, even though I have studied what awakened people are like and what their classics are talking about, I have not become any part of any religions because in my opinion, believe in what religion doesn't really matter but only the truth that really can help our human beings' sufferings matters. Thanks! Experienced Practice (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

：LizToBeFreeJBW Thanks for all your help on this posting! I understand your difficulty on this matter. No need to argue for me. It's ok that I don't get to contribute on Wikipedia. Wish you all good luck! Thanks again!


 * I described my last post here as "one last try at explaining", but this one really is my last try. If you still don't understand after this then I don't think I will be able to help.
 * Describing something as "the real existing wisdom that knows everything in the universe" and as "the eternal supreme omniscient wisdom" is expressing a point of view: not everybody believes that. Stating what you regard as "the best way to learn" is expressing a point of view; not everyone thinks that is the best way to learn. And much the same applies to other aspects of what you wrote. JBW (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * JBW Thanks for your response! I get your point. I stated those following the guidance of Wikipedia of using my own words to express the concept, so I thought that was ok to state. So if I cite with references to the statements, would that be accepted? Thanks!