User talk:Hari 1213

Welcome!
Hye sure. Thank you for the reply really appreciate that. "Hari 1213 (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)"

May 2020
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: 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. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI_JS_signature_icon_LTR.svg located above the edit window.


 * (Hari 1213 (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC))


 * I have a question. Why after i edited the article of shivalingam. It turns to original. Is that means i have to rights to edit?
 * (Hari 1213 (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC))


 * I have no idea wat is the mistakes i did. I'm trying to edit a page or article that is wrongly mentioned. But without guiding me, u guys blocked me. I accept all ur guidance and lessons but u guys not doing it.
 * (Hari 1213 (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC))


 * You have been given complete guidance in the section at the top of this page titled "Welcome". Please read the articles carefully, including Reliable sources . Wikipedia is not a free-for-all, where we pile on with our opinions. It's an actual encyclopedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Lingam. Materialscientist (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Materialscientist (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Lingam has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Lingam was changed by Hari 1213 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.887687 on 2020-05-31T07:54:42+00:00

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Lingam. ''

This was exactly the same editing that led to your being blocked before.  bonadea'' contributions talk 08:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. As i know I've added reliable sources why such thing happen again? Hari 1213 (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

{Hari 1213 (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)}


 * I checked five of the external links and references you had added – none of them was a reliable secondary source as Wikipedia defines it. In addition, the majority of the added content was not sourced, and violated the original research policy.


 * Equally important is the fact that Wikipedia has to be written from a neutral point of view, and not the point of view of any one religion. Text such as "If you become meditative, your energies will naturally take the form of a Linga. It indicates that Lord Shiva is endowed with all- pervading and self- luminous nature." is not neutral, and violates Wikipedia's policy on keeping a formal tone. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I will rewrite with a neutral points. With reliable sources.

{Hari 1213 (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)}

Hi, since you telling this text "If you become meditative, your energies will naturally take the form of a Linga, by the way it is true fact in our hinduism we ain't lying. I don't understand in what kind of reason you telling it's violates?. And the text you using below here, "The stone lingam is clearly a detailed representation of an erect phallus,the Indus people may well have created the symbolism of the divine phallus" so we shouldn't call it as violence is it ? Wow, its so super decent word "masculine" that explain to my deity. If you really dare, enough have real guts enough reply me your answer. But you all the kids people who scared of hinduism afraid to tell the truth, sacred we will conquer it. Actually no, we won't play the role as you. You are the real people who putting this unrelenting words inside make it violets. What you will do, after this text will definitely freeze this discussion, i know right. Close minded people thinks this so.

Thank you. Hari 1213 (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not very easy to understand what you mean here, but let me address a couple of things. it is true fact in our hinduism we ain't lying – nobody mentioned "lying". It is not a question of truth or not, but of writing in a neutral manner and using a formal tone. Please follow the links provided in the notice above. Secondly, Wikipedia writes about what reliable secondary sources have already written. The sentence you quote from the article, which seemingly annoys you, refers to a well-sourced description of this picture. There is also plenty of explanation in the article that the concept of lingam does not represent masculinity to all believers. The article appears to be rather well-balanced, in fact, presenting different points of view. If there are misrepresentations of sources, it would be a good idea for you to discuss those on the article talk page and not edit the article directly. --bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Does google scholar count as a reliable sources? Hari 1213 (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Google Scholar does not have any content, it simply indexes content, so it is not a source. (Just like any other Google search result, in fact.) Papers that are indexed by Google Scholar may be reliable sources, but not all of them are. For instance, many very old scholarly publications are indexed by Google, but would not be considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. --bonadea contributions talk 14:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Lingam; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 5 June 2020 (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.