![]() Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are unable to create an account due to your institution's IP address being blocked, follow these instructions. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator or instructor and request that your school contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.
Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a
soft block using {{
School block}}. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.
![]() |
![]() | This
IP address has been repeatedly
blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to
abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block. |
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)
Hello, I'm
Zac67. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions 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)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war 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)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Isabelle Belato
🏳🌈
15:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
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!)
citation unneeded
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?
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...
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)
Due to persistent vandalism, anonymous editing from your school, library, or educational institution's IP address may be blocked (disabled). You will continue to have access to read the encyclopedia. If you are logged in but still unable to edit, please follow these instructions. To prevent abuse, account creation via this IP address might also be disabled.
If account creation is disabled and you are unable to create an account elsewhere, you can request one by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. If editing is required for class projects, please have your instructor or network administrator contact us (with reference to this IP address) at the Unblock Ticket Request System with a contact email address that is listed on your school's website. Thank you for your cooperation.
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
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?
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.
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".
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
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).
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?
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.
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".
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
![]() Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are unable to create an account due to your institution's IP address being blocked, follow these instructions. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator or instructor and request that your school contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.
Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a
soft block using {{
School block}}. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.
![]() |
![]() | This
IP address has been repeatedly
blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to
abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block. |
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)
Hello, I'm
Zac67. I wanted to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions 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)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war 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)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Isabelle Belato
🏳🌈
15:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
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!)
citation unneeded
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?
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...
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)
Due to persistent vandalism, anonymous editing from your school, library, or educational institution's IP address may be blocked (disabled). You will continue to have access to read the encyclopedia. If you are logged in but still unable to edit, please follow these instructions. To prevent abuse, account creation via this IP address might also be disabled.
If account creation is disabled and you are unable to create an account elsewhere, you can request one by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. If editing is required for class projects, please have your instructor or network administrator contact us (with reference to this IP address) at the Unblock Ticket Request System with a contact email address that is listed on your school's website. Thank you for your cooperation.
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
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?
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.
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".
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
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).
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?
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.
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".
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |