Hello, ParvatPrakash, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, , or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

Hi ParvatPrakash, kindly do not revert my changes at the Mahavira Wiki Page beacuse of your personal reasons that you've been struggling through last few months. The old image used is a very well known image of Mahavir Swami. If I wanted I could also have removed another Shwetambar tradition image from the page but I am a secular Jain scholar from Canada. Just refining Jainism for people here. Kindly do not spread sectarian supremerism. Peace. (talk • contribs) 07:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any reverts are because of loss of information produced by your edits. Images are unimportant as long as they indicate the same person. However, deleting other information that you don't believe in is not acceptable. I'll keep your image as you say, but deleting any other information is vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism ParvatPrakash (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ParvatPrakash, as described in bold text by the introduction of the policy you've linked to, accusations of vandalism (malicious / intentional damage to the encyclopedia) are probably wrong here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could have been wrong. Just noticed the details. However, User:Dennis Dijkstra deleted details about the spouse and children of Mahavira. These changes were without references. They seemed to be vandalising edits to me. So, to not engage in edit war with the user, I thought to keep the image same as suggested by them. However, unexplained deletion of information seemed unnecessary to me. I could very well be wrong here though. ParvatPrakash (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Rishabhanatha) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I tried to discuss the reason with the user on their talk page. I have been trying to do that since yesterday. They keep changing the page without responding to my message on their talk page. I also warned them multiple times, but they did not respond with an answer. I have warned the said user over 5 times since yesterday.

Decline reason:

Once you have achieved consensus for your changes on the article talk page, but not before, you can ask for an unblock. Yamla (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Hi ParvatPrakash, the correct place for such a discussion is the article's talk page, and you can still edit that page. Please create a new section there explaining your preference. You can then use {{Please see}} at User talk:Be Jain to invite Be Jain to the discussion. I'd be surprised if this doesn't result in discussion, but if it really doesn't and you are really ignored, see WP:DISCFAIL for a helpful essay describing a way to proceed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In your message on the article's talk page, please focus on the content. Do not directly address the other user, simply explain why you prefer your revision and why the other version is not acceptable. If possible, cite a policy or guideline supporting your view. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I didn't know about this policy. Still learning as I go. I'll keep in mind to discuss difference on the article's talk page instead of the user's. I think I just swayed cause I was warning them for the other disruptive edits they were making. Thanks again. ParvatPrakash (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good, no worries. Thank you very much for starting the discussion at Talk:Rishabhanatha#Image_of_the_subject; this is a very good start. Citing guideline sections, looks perfect to me. Of course, there may be disagreement about whether the guideline actually supports your image choice, and if you remain in disagreement, you may need a third opinion or a RfC. But that's not something to be done at the start, that's just an option one should keep in mind for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Hinduism and Jainism, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Cassiopeia talk 09:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I did not provide a source because it was already present in the footnote to the section. It was also present in the reference at the end of the sentence I added. ParvatPrakash (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your recent contribution to Girnar deserves a discussion before they can be published in my opinion. I have created a topic in Talk:Girnar page where you can find more information. I would advise you to please review it before reverting changes or submitting any edits related to that topic. If you have you want to have further discussion of have any question you can also reach me at my talk page. Thanks. Tannaray68 (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sachiya Mata Temple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parmara. 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) 07:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ParvatPrakash, I have been asking you continuously for discussion on talk page regarding your recent edits in History section of your Jainism page and engaging in edit war. 1. Your content is not in tune with the section of the page. The section simply mentions Jain poet Shrimad Rajchandra's contribution in colonial era.

2. There is no mention of Shrimad Rajchandra as a monk which you are stating. So there is no context in your lines.

3. In one of the comments, you mention that "largest sect" doesn't recognise "Shrimad Rajchandra sect". There is no mention of Shrimad Rajchandra sect so this again is out of context. Secondly, numerical strength of sects don't get them any authoritative power to recognise or reject others.

4. The sources you provided from Shrimad Rajchandra website have no mention about other sects. Mr. Yugbhushan's personal views are not Wikipedia's voice to be accepted in Jainism's history section. Please provide sources from academic scholarship.

5. Please refrain from deleting random lines. Livingstonshr (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already rephrased my content. With all due respect, if you found anything controversial with my content, you should've ideally initiated the discussion on the talk page. Shrimad Rajchandra and his sect are related. If you mention one, you simply also refer to the other. His practices aren't accepted by other sects, and if you didn't know that, I can cite numerous sources from religious texts of all the historically recognized sects. Numerical strength is acceptable or not is not the point of discussion. Svetambara and Digambara are the only two historical sects. The rest are sects started later by laypersons. I did not delete random lines. One can simply not mention that Shrimad Rajchandra is revered without reliable sources. My point still stands. ParvatPrakash (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions are clearly agenda driven, biased and sectarian in nature. You omitted a content which was present on the page since more than a decade, without any interest in gaining consensus. Shrimad Rajchandra and sect formed by his followers after him are not related. None of us are here to decide which sects are correct and which ones are not. The history section simply states his works and contributions. All notable saints have critics from other sects, Mr. Yugbhushan, whose personal opinion you cited is himself infamous for proclaiming himself "spiritual monarch" of Jainism. The purpose of Jainism page is only to give introductory information on notable people and places related to it and not to show one sect superior to another,or anyone's personal opinions. Kindly refrain from making any changes further. Thank You. Livingstonshr (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Livingstonshr Livingstonshr (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've only reverted thrice. I did not go over the limit of 3 reverts. ParvatPrakash (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ParvatPrakash, you have edit warred about Jainism independently of the three-revert rule. You had been blocked for edit warring before and it led to page protection today. If it continues on other pages, a block without automatic expiry date may follow. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for edit warring if I've violated policies. Usually, I do take care that it doesn't violate the 3RR and try to explain the reason for the revert in the edit summary itself. I understand the reason for this warning and I assure you that this won't repeat. I had taken 3RR as a litmus test. I'll take care to not edit war even without applying this rule. I wholeheartedly welcome your decision to protect the page because it's already a GA and it's fair that editors only with good experience of editing pages on Wikipedia are given the permission to edit this page. Earlier, it was already protected up to autoconfirmed access. I think it's a good move to take it up to extended confirmed viewing the recent vandalising edits and edits with original research. Thank you and sorry again for my careless behaviour. ParvatPrakash (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Thank you for your understanding and no worries. 🙂 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thanks. Livingstonshr (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you adding wrong information? Who told you that court has given decision in favour of shwetambars? Decision clearly mentioned that it has been handed over to jains. If you don't know anything then why are you adding information? It is not a shwetambar temple. Nimit vanawat (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Thanks for taking up this discussion. Your edit was reverted because you deleted several scholarly and court order references. Here is the Rajasthan High Court order that refers to the 30th June, 1966 order by the same court which declared it as a Svetambara Jain temple in point number 6 within this order: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1130269/

This order was also cited in the line that you removed. One more important point to remember: having such discussions on the talk page of the article in discussion is more suitable so that such confusion can be avoided in future. Thanks again for taking this up for discussion. ParvatPrakash (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In which line of the court decision it is written that temple is of shwetambars? It is only written temple is a jain temple. Nimit vanawat (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to point number 6 of the stated order that says: -

6. The High Court, by its judgment dated 30-3-66 held that the temple was a Swetamber Jain temple

ParvatPrakash (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

read point 7 , order of supreme court. Nimit vanawat (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In our view, however, without going into the question whether the temple is a Swe-tamber or a Digamber Jain temple, it will be sufficient for us to consider whether the temple is a Jain temple, or as alleged by the State, a Hindu temple. On a consideration of all the documents admitted, which the State has not, and cannot challenge, we have no doubt that Shri Rikhabdevji temple is a Jain temple and the State of Rajasthan has produced no evidence to the contrary to show that it is a Hindu temple where Jains of all sects as well as Hindus of all sects including the Bhils are allowed to worship Nimit vanawat (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the subject of discussion was not it's sectarian status, but it's status as a Hindu or Jain temple. Point 7 deals with its status as a Hindu or Jain temple. Point 6 refers back to a previous order that says it was a Svetambara Jain temple. Rajasthan High Court in its 30th March, 1966 order did declare it as a Svetambara Jain temple as mentioned in the order's point 6 itself. ParvatPrakash (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i wonder if it's a shwetambar temple then where is Bhagwan's Chakshu? Or clothes ? Nimit vanawat (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also supreme court declared it as a jain temple by changing high court's decision. Nimit vanawat (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite where the Supreme Court said that it was not a Svetambara Jain temple and that they overturn the High Court's order. I did not find any such references. About the iconographical changes, Svetambara Jain idols are both clothed and unclothed or with and without external eyes or jewellery as discussed in Dundas (2002) as well as Padmanabh Jaini's works on iconography. ParvatPrakash (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please read point 11 & 14 properly Nimit vanawat (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also regarding ideology, shwetambar word itself means white clothes, and digambar means without clothes. Nimit vanawat (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to your opinion, this discussion about the etymology of the word Svetambara or Digambara comes under original research and is not acceptable at Wikipedia. Neither point 11 nor point 14 mention that the Supreme Court overturns the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court. It merely says it is a Jain temple as the issue under discussion was whethere it is a Hindu or a Jain temple. A lower court has already decided that it is a Svetambara temple, but is to be managed by the Government of Rajasthan. I did not find references where the Supreme Court overturned this judgment. Please quote the sources you found this information from. ParvatPrakash (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a shwetambar temple then honorable supreme court should also mentioned it . But they didn't which means it's not a shwetambar temple. It overruled high court's decision and stated that it is a jain temple only. Nimit vanawat (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also provide the proof that it is a shwetambar temple according to shwetambar ideology. What makes it shwetambar and not a digambar temple. Nimit vanawat (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have also seen that you are in edit war with other users too which means you want to publish flase information and only want to display what you want. Nimit vanawat (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only post information that is well-sourced. Several times, edit wars happen due to intolerance for each other's viewpoints and I've duly apologized for that kind of ill behaviour from my side earlier. However, a court judgment is not subject to discussion, ideally, as it is a fact. I urge you to provide information that says otherwise, so that I am able to learn about the status of the said temple in discussion. ParvatPrakash (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Rajasthan High Court, as it states in its order dated 30-3-1966, the said temple of Kesariyaji Adinath is a Svetambara Jain temple without any further explanation. If we observe the history of this temple, it was built, owned, and maintained by the Maharanas of Udaipur (as found in Padmanabh Jaini's works and official records of the royal house of Mewar, Rajasthan). Several objects of the temple point to its Svetambara heritage, with idol of Marudevi on an elephant (as seen at Ranakpur's Chaturmukha Dharna Vihar and corroborated by Hemachandra's Trisastisalakapurusacharitra). The temple was also renovated by Bhamasha Oswal of Mewar under Hirvijaya's guidance. These are from works of history. If you believe otherwise, do refer to the works of this temple's history by both Svetambara and Digambara pontiffs for a neutral viewpoint. I do not have a personal bias here, but the court's decision was a judgment and was never challenged or refuted by a higher court, so it still holds until its refuted by a higher court of Law. I would love a chat about this if you are open to listening to a neutral viewpoint. ParvatPrakash (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Court would not repeat something said by a lower court if it agrees to it. Any court, for that matter, does not repeat something that a judgment passed by a lower court already entails. And if you really feel that I'm mistaken in supporting this view of the Rajasthan High Court, I request you to kindly share sources that support your view and are acceptable at Wikipedia. I'm open to learning new viewpoints that are strongly supported by court judgments, orders, and appeal responses. ParvatPrakash (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having a postage stamp printed in one’s honor is evidence of notability. Unless his supporters bribed officials to create the stamp, of which there is no proof, it would be likely his deletion would be controversial. Please go to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! That's a good point of notability. I think I just missed it. I'll try to find more about the subject of the page. If there's a stamp issued in his honor, I might find more about him, hopefully. Thank you very much for correcting my terrible mistake. ParvatPrakash (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once a proposed deletion has been vetoed by one editor, you must use the WP:AfD process. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Yes, I'm aware of that. I just hadn't noticed that there was a previous PROD on that page. There's so many pages that have such poorly sourced or unsourced content. I'll probably just put it in AfD. Thank you for noticing and letting me know. It's editors like you that I learn the most from :-) ParvatPrakash (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]