Lk568354

Hello, Lk568354 and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Red Director (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ganesha, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. As Abecedare mentioned several months ago, please explain your reasons on the article talk page. Moksha88 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)+

I'm making it succinct. There is no reason to be appalled or question my harmless edits. It was repetitive, therefore needed to be succinct (your "valid" reason). Please do not revert my constructive edits.

I have also provided very informative edits that are not "repetitive" but paramount to the said descriptions, as how other diety's pages are.

Godess Durga Page

Hello User i observe u recently made some edits on Durga page although edits doesnt seem constructive or neccessary & neither u provide any suitable citations for ur changes.Kindly note that Wikipedia needs reliable citation to establish some facts.I revert edits if u want to edit again please do but with Good sources and Consensous on Talk page. Cheers. Aristocratic 536 (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Durga. 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 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lk568354 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here There is no reason for me to be blocked. I found this insulting and disrespectful. Apparently the one who was deleting my edit of consort for Durga has some issue with a paramount characteristic that describes Durga, a characteristic that has been there for years. And why is it that my edit is still deleted? This shows honoring of the other person's asinine warring over my edit to maintain something good that has always been there for years since its inception. This doesn't even require a dispute. Just as it's not disputable that the first President of the United States is George Washington

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. only (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lk568354 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here I simply added back what was already there for many years. The fact that you blocked me, didn't provide legitimate reason to why you declined my unblock request, and continue to allow the page to be as according to that warring child, is frankly disrespectful and biased.

Decline reason:

This does not address your edit warring. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were blocked for violating the three-revert rule, as was the editor that you were feuding with. When your block expires, you can resolve the dispute the right way: by starting a discussion on the article's talk page and hashing things out. If you can't come to an agreement there, you can use WP:3O, WP:DRN, or WP:RFC to get other editors to step in and form a consensus about which revision is the appropriate one to keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I need to know how to access the talk page. But I'm sure who ever is the other editor was a child. I hope to find time later to access the talk page as time is limited for me. But some information is absolutely crucial and cannot be refuted. If the prophet Muhammad was declared gay and the topic was brought up for refuting in its talk page, that would cause a lot of commotion and protest, even if it was brought up in the talk page. So I feel like going that route with a child is nonsensical.

If you are using a computer or the full desktop version on a phone, every article has a link to the talk page at the top, by clicking "Talk". In this case, the talk page is at Talk:Durga. You should proceed as Rosguill suggests; if talk page discussion fails, there are other avenues of dispute resolution, as noted. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello, I'm MRRaja001. An edit that you recently made to Durga seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The article is about multiple traditions and cultures. So please don't add content in a biased way. MRRaja001 (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Durga page

Hi Lk568354, i've added you to WP:DRN - Here's the link for it. Please participate there let's resolve the issue. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 05:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Please consider adding your opinion at the section allotted for you "Summary of dispute by Lk568354", Thank you. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 10:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Subh Diwali

.🪔HappyDeepawali🪔May this festival bring peace and blessings to you and your family • .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 10:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Durga Page

Hi, the issue is closed and please don't edit the note again. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 12:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC) The issue has not been closed. She is not a celebate, not even in Vaishnavism. This is an insult to our goddess.

December 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Adi Parashakti, did not appear constructive and has 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) 14:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

AdiPara Shakti is a name primarily used to describe Parvati. It in fact has come from Parvati's mythology, where then other sects have adopted the same message. There is no Shakti without a consort. This is also disrespectful to our mother goddess where she is primarily defined by her consort. What you are doing, by deleting my comments, is pure false propaganda. There is no better and accurate definition to Shakti than her consort, and vice versa. Please do not remove the main and vital definition to Shakti's page by deleting her consort. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lk568354 (talk • 18:59, 20 December 2020‎ (UTC) contribs)

See i want to clarify you one thing. In Vaishnavism Durga is considered form of Lakshmi and also wife of Vishnu. In Lakshmi Tantra, a Pancharatra text Maa Lakshmi is clearly saying that she is Adi Parashakti and the Shakti that came out of all devatas to kill demons. In order to maintain neutrality we are removing Shiva from infobox. - MRRaja001 ^(talk) 14:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

You see, I want to clarify one thing for you, In Vaishnavism, Durga is considered a form of Lakshmi who is the wife of Vishnu. In Shivaism and Shaktism, Lakshmi is considered a form of Durga who is the wife of Shiva. Removing Shiva from the infobox is an insult to our goddess Shakti, because we cannot worship a mother without a father. Adi ParaShakti (or Shakti) is simply and predominantly associated with Shiva and yes Vaishnavism and other religions have adopted that term, but it is primarily associated with Shiva. You seem biased and you're probably brainwashed into keeping women celibate and promoting celibacy, which is evil (and radical just like many Muslim beliefs). Please do not divorce adi parashakti from AdiShiva. If there is any final definition of Adi ParaShakti, it's Shiva. Removing this fact is a disservice to her page. Om shanti.

May 2021

Hello, I'm MelecieDiancie. I noticed that you recently removed content from Durga without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. •Melecie!• ~talk~ 04:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Durga, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 04:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

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 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.

•Melecie!• ~talk~ 05:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mahadevi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mahadev. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)