User talk:Starry Pine

I have notified WP:DRN for independent advice from more experienced parties as is my understanding of the wikipedia consensus procedure. ChaseKiwi (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I’ll review the DRN request and contribute my perspective there. I agree it’s best to seek input from uninvolved editors. Starry Pine (talk) 05:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Premchand Roychand, did not appear to be constructive and have 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. Nabhas Chandra (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

you issued a warning to my edits citing a source that does not mention anything about the sect. Please provide the correct source if you intend to warn someone.

Do not misuse Twinkle; improper use of warning tools can result in your Twinkle rights being revoked. Starry Pine (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Nabhas Chandra what is the source? There is literally nothing that IP user cited to add the sect of Premchand Roychand Starry Pine (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I check everything before reverting edits. I am always fighting against vandalism and I check every edit, then I revert them and issue warnings. Starry Pine (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I checked the source added by that IP there is litterally nothing about his sect This is the exact sentence from the reference--

"Roychand’s own story is typical of Mumbai as a city. He was born in Surat in March 1831 into a family belonging to the Bania Caste of Shravak Jains. When he was a child, his parents took him and his siblings to Mumbai, where business people from different areas of Gujarat and were settling to carry on trade."

There is no mention of his sect in the whole article. did you even checked those source? without checking those source you warned me using twinkle, You must adhere to wikipedia policies.(Read: Wikipedia:Verifiability). ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I did check the sources and they do very well state that Premchand Roychand was well-acquainted with other Śvetambara scholars such as Virchand R. Gandhi and Kasturbhai Lalbhai. From the existing sources, it can be deduced that he was a Śvetambara Jaina. However, your persistent removal of the word "Śvetambara" was a little problematic here as the article's body also cites a source that mentions Mohanlal, a Śvetambara ascetic to be his preceptor. Additionally, the Jain Gazette published in 1905 by the Jain Student Institute of Kolhapur clearly mentions that P. Roychand was born in a Svetambara family on page 5. Nabhas Chandra (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Nabhas Chandra, I understand your point, and I appreciate that you added the Jain Gazette reference—it’s clearer than before. However, a few things to note:

1.⁠ ⁠Claims such as “because Virchand R. Gandhi and Kasturbhai Lalbhai were Shwetambar, So P. Roychand must be Shwetambar” are not acceptable on Wikipedia. All statements must be supported by clear, reliable sources explicitly stating the fact.

2.⁠ ⁠While the Jain Gazette reference you added is noted, admins generally prefer secondary sources like books or scholarly publications. Your reference can be kept in the body as supporting material.

3.⁠ ⁠Sects should not be included in the lead. The lead must remain neutral and concise. Adding sects repeatedly makes the article less readable for the general audience.

Recommendation:

Move all sect-related references to the body of the article.

Remove sect mentions from the lead.

This keeps the article neutral, verifiable, and reader-friendly. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Jain Gazette is a reliable source because it was published when Premchand Roychand was alive. This particular source is important and by the definition of WP:RS, this source is secondary. My stand is that as long as you do not present evidence to make a point that he was Digambara, what has already been presented is enough to prove that he was Śvetāmbara. Additionally, his role in the history of Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi Trust with respect to the said trust attaining rights to Mount Shatrunjaya, is also proof enough to accept his religious belief. I am of the opinion to keep his sect in the lead itself as he is well-known in the community for his philanthropic works. As per our previous discussion, you asked me to find a source that he was a Śvetāmbaraand now there exists a reliable, verifiable, and secondary source for that. Hence, very humbly, I do not accept your recommendation of removing sect mentions from the lead. Something that has a source is not supposed to be removed from the article. Nabhas Chandra (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I noticed you've moved forward with changing details without achieving consensus here. You had asked for a source and I have added it there. Rather than removing that information, please discuss first. Nabhas Chandra (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Nabhas Chandra For your information, I didn’t remove your references; I only moved them to the body. It’s not because of your source—you added a good source. However, even after several editors removed the sect from the lead, you keep adding it back. Please understand the Wikipedia policy and why it is removed. I moved it for better readability and to align with Wikipedia’s formatting standards. (read:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Starry Pine, can you please explain why have you changed the image and locked the page. Kindly revert it back to previous version. Palitana is the most famous and holiest pilgrimage of Jains and the previous image was of this pilgrimage. Thanks. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I am referring to Rishabhanatha page. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @User:pawapuri Winds,

The most famous temple is fine, but for another sect like Digambar, the most important pilgrimage is Kundalpur. Every sect has its own popular places, and Wikipedia does not give preference to any sect.

As discussed on the Rishabhanatha, I suggested adding Tirthankara images alternately—one Digambar, one Shwetambar, and so on (1st Digambar, 2nd Shwetambar, 3rd Digambar, 4th Shwetambar -- 24). I added this note on the talk page of Talk:Rishabhanatha; please check. Currently, almost all Tirthankara images are Shwetambar, so it’s better to neutralize it for both sects.

Because of this, edit wars have been happening, and the Rishabhanatha page is fully locked. Please review my proposal and help add both Digambar and Shwetambar images for neutrality. Hope you understand.~~ Starry Pine (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, the most popular page wrt viewership count on wikipedia among all 24 Tirthankars is Mahavira which has digambar iconography. The second is Rishabhanatha which should have svetambar iconography. Another reason I already mentioned. Hope you understand. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Infact, viewership of Mahavira is more that all other 23 combined! Palitana is the most visited Jain pilgrimage destination. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)Pawapuri Winds (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Pawapuri Winds,

Please check the sequence table — it shows which Tirthankara should have which image. According to it, Mahavira (24th) goes to the Śvetāmbara side. Starry Pine (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding images of other Tirthankars, I believe they should be based on two things - the quality of pictures and second whether the place of a particular Jina image has any historical importance. Kindly let me know your opinion on this. Pawapuri Winds (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pawapuri Winds

As I mentioned earlier, both sects have different historically important sites. For example, followers of Kanji Swami consider Songadh important, Gujarat Jains consider Palitana significant, and for Karnataka Jains, sites like Kambadahalli and Shravanbelgola are important.

Edit wars are likely because Svetambar editors may not allow important Digambar images, and Digambar editors may not allow important Svetambar images. So, realistically, there may be no full solution. That’s why, as I suggested before, following the sequence, Mahavira goes to the Śvetāmbara side. You can decide which Śvetāmbara Jina image is historically most important to include. Starry Pine (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I would like to discuss why you removed the image from Bhadrabahu. 2409:4080:E89:57B4:2B3B:6B7:4CC6:10BB (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I removed the recently added image because it only represents the Śvetāmbara tradition. Since Bhadrabahu is an important figure for both Śvetāmbara and Digambara traditions, using an image from just one sect is not neutral. To follow Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy, it is better to retain the long-standing neutral image. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

How is the image you added neutral? And how does it represent Bhadrabahu more than the one you removed? Kindly explain because Bhadrabahu is barely visible in that picture. Is Bhadrabahu a piece of stone or a person? 2409:4080:E89:57B4:2B3B:6B7:4CC6:10BB (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Because you are using a VPN, your IP is currently blocked and you cannot make further edits or comments. The image added was intended to be neutral, but if Bhadrabahu’s representation is unclear, we can discuss suitable alternatives on the article’s talk page once a registered or unblocked user proposes them. Starry Pine (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The image you added is neither neutral, nor does it show Bhadrabahu clearly with the whole set of other persons in the inscription. Stop trying to portray it as neutral. 2409:4081:1E1E:B8F5:6A71:5A98:5246:BD1B (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that even after blocking multiple IPs associated with your contributions, you continue to comment on my talk page using VPNs. I have reviewed your contributions, and it appears you are primarily pushing a particular POV rather than following Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. This gives the impression that you are not here to contribute constructively.

I don’t think you will ever contribute positively to Wikipedia or your Jainism. Could you explain why you think sect is more important than your religion, and why you are not considering other sects?

I do not have the time to engage in daily disputes with you. Even after guidance from multiple editors, you have not adhered to guidelines and instead continued to push Single sect POV using multiple IPs and repeated reverts. Other editors have refrained from engaging because they see no point in arguing with you.

Since I am free for some days, I will work on ensuring neutrality where needed. Many of those pages are now protected. My advice is to focus on adding neutral, verifiable contributions about your religion’s history and to ensure balanced POV for all sects. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

If you want to collaborate for constructive contribution, I don't mind. However, that being said, just like you don't tolerate biasness, I will also not tolerate sectarian biasness on any page. I have seen more biased content here than what you are currently fighting for. If you want neutrality, I will give you neutrality, but it has to be from both the sides. You keep editing "Svetambara" out on Premchand Roychand will not help achieve consensus or neutrality. I am open to neutral and constructive collaboration. Let me know if you are or if you want to keep going on with edit wars. It's a choice up to you :) Thanks and Regards. 2409:4081:58F:E9A3:38FF:B180:915F:5C9A (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Does this mean you only want to edit war without striving for a sensible solution? You just claimed that all Jains have 108 prominent idols of Parshvanatha. What is the source? 2409:4080:1085:427C:EE77:7051:ADEA:A126 (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I neutralized the lead — the temple belongs to both Śvetāmbara and Digambara sects. Writing it as only Śvetāmbara is non-neutral. Per WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD, the lead must stay balanced. I also noticed earlier editors had kept it neutral, but you keep reverting using multiple IP's VPN/IPs. Starry Pine (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

If you notice carefully, all I did was correct a small error you made. I did not revert your edit fully. At least see the diff of the edit before accusing. I offered collaboration on important subjects, but if you don't want that, it's your choice. 2409:4080:1085:427C:EE77:7051:ADEA:A126 (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your collaboration. However, I would ask you to please consider how many pages you may have edited in a way that pushes non-neutral points of view. I have corrected the Antarikṣa Pārśvanātha Tīrtha page to bring it in line with NPOV, so please avoid making disruptive changes there. I will review the article more carefully and make further improvements tomorrow.

Regarding images: I noticed that only Svetambara depictions were added across the Tirthankara pages. Per NPOV and fairness, both Digambara and Śvetāmbara images should be represented sequentially for all 24 Tirthankaras. I have already raised this proposal at the Talk:Rishabhanatha page, and I encourage you to review and discuss it there before making further image changes. ~~Starry Pine (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you noticed the history properly? Have you seen that originally all 24 were Digambara images? Anyways, this discussion is endless. Any changes you want to do are welcome. I have never reverted or changed any neutralizing edits. Just be ready with sources because just like you won't, I also won't tolerate biased edits. If you still want a sensible solution, I'm open to collaboration on common subjects. 2409:4080:1085:427C:EE77:7051:ADEA:A126 (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure which images were there in the past — Digambara or Svetambara — but if only Digambara images were present, where were you then? why this issue of neutrality was not raised at that time.

In any case, I have added a template on Talk:Rishabhanatha that lays out a sequence for which Tirthankara images should be included. Please share your comments there. Starting tomorrow, I will begin replacing the images according to that sequence so that representation is balanced. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I hardly care about images. Digambara or Svetambara, they should represent the deity. Have you even seen the edit wars between Svetambara and Digambara users that have happened in the past? The amount of misinformation spread by Digambara editors was enormous. Anyways, you go ahead with your work. The moment you make any unsourced claims or remove any sourced information, I'll intervene and request for your sources. I have not reverted any of your correct or sensible edits. Consider me gone as long as you are neutral. Anything exclusive to Svetambara or Digambara sect must be mentioned so. There must be no compromise on the specificity of information, irrespective of the sect involved. If it is Digambara, it should be mentioned so. If it is Svetambara, it should also be mentioned so. 2409:4080:1085:427C:EE77:7051:ADEA:A126 (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You can reach out to me at arhamshahonnet at gmail.com to discuss plausible collaboration on common subjects. 2409:4080:1085:427C:EE77:7051:ADEA:A126 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)o common subjectsn

PS: other users did raise concerns about neutrality. Digambaras were not cooperative and were only interested in edit wars. I expect better of you than them. 2409:4080:1085:427C:EE77:7051:ADEA:A126 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you please clarify something?. Is the account Nabhas Chandra connected to you, and are you also editing under RJ Shashwat, Parvat Prakash? or this accounts yours only?, I’ve noticed similarities in editing patterns across these accounts pusing same pov, as well as some IP edits that look similar. Since I already reported morning for possible sockpuppetry, administrators may look into it.

If the accounts are connected, it’s best to disclose that directly to the admins. Also, may I ask why you are editing from multiple IPs or VPNs instead of a single registered account? Editing from one stable account avoids confusion and makes discussions easier.

I hope you’ll continue editing constructively, especially in the Jainism-related articles. It would be great if you could also join in tomorrow and help with the proposal I made to add Tirthankara images sequence-wise, so we can keep the pages balanced and neutral.

thankyou. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

They are not my accounts. 2409:4080:1085:427C:5CED:E7E4:CBB2:6EEE (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier at User talk:Curbon7, you recently added in the lead that the Oswal community is a “Svetambara mercantile community.” Do you think that’s fair or encyclopedic when many Oswals also follow Digambara practices?

I had corrected it to “Jain mercantile community,” but you reverted it again. To reflect balance, I later mentioned both sects, even i have added "majority of Oswals follow Svetambara practices."

My proposal is that we keep the lead wording neutral simply “Jain mercantile community” and let the body of the article explain sectarian affiliations in detail.

More generally, I feel it’s better not to add sectarian labels in the Jain articles or biographies of Jain businesspeople. Describing someone as a “Jain businessman” is sufficient, Adding sect everywhere gives undue weight and is not positive for the Jain community as a whole.

Hope you understand. thankyou ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 05:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Lead and related information should be as specific as possible. Similar to your stand, someone will propose to remove "Jain" as well and mention that the said person is an "Indian businessman" or so. This is not the right way in my opinion. Wikipedia has encyclopaedic content and should sound encyclopaedic and as specific as possible. Sectarian affiliations are specific parts of the person's personal life. Such details should not be omitted. About any that you think are Oswals and are Digambara at the same time, why is it objectionable? Here are the details: -

1. Digambaras being Oswal is WP:FRINGE, i.e. an idea that is significantly diverse from the mainstream belief. Such ideas can most definitely not be added to the lead. Latter parts of the article can have unbiased mentions to that. However, this cannot be added to the lead.

2. The source (which is also not from a reliable publication) that you presented only talks about one particular community - Bardiyas. Baradiya has been detailed as a Svetambara surname as well. Therefore, surnames that exist in both communities cannot be effectively used as a means to decide if they are Oswalas or not. Is there a surname that does not exist in Svetambaras, but is in Digambaras and can be proven as Oswala? That would significantly help the article. Otherwise, it is just not enough to prove.

3. Does there exist any historical record of the creation of the Oswala clan in Digambara sources? By far, the only evidence of this clan is from the Svetambara sources that mention about Srimala and Osian as well as Ratnaprabhasūrī. Additionally, the Sacciyā Mātā Temple at Osian has been proven to have Svetambara Jaina architecture with idols of Jīvantasvāmī carved on the outer walls. By far, I have not come across Digambara literature that mentions about Oswalas.

To stand by your own arguments, you should ideally provide evidence that is endorsed by scholars and is secondary in nature. 2409:4081:16:2847:FD75:6B5F:A517:7A7D (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The content you are removing from article Mahavira is a sourced content, read the sources carefully. Do not revert the edits blindly. And don't add honorific in the sentence, read the rules of Wikipedia before editing. By your edit history I believe you are a Jain, don't you know that information about Mahavira's life is uncertain and varies among the different sects. For example- He is considered a married man with child according to svetambaras and he is considered unmarried by Digambaras. Same is with the birth place, according to svetambaras he was born in Kshatriyakund and according to Digambaras he was born in Kundagram. Consider checking the sources, before blindly reverting the constructive edits next time. Hbanm (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hbanm For your information, the both sects traditions differ mainly on details such as Mahavira’s marriage and the form of his birthplace, but not on the period of his life. Both sects agree that he lived in the 6th-5th century BCE, so there is no controversy on that matter.

Regarding historians, every reliable sources and historians place him in the 6th–5th century BCE. There is no variation such as 4th century or 7th century in the scholarship - the dating is consistent. The sentence you added - “Although the dates and most historical details of his life are uncertain and varies by sect, historians generally…” - unintentionally creates doubt for the reader.

Immediately afterwards, the article states: “The historicity of Mahavira is well-established and not in dispute among scholars.”

This results in poor flow: first suggesting uncertainty, then immediately asserting that there is no dispute. Since scholars consistently date him to the 6th-5th century BCE, a simpler phrasing such as “Historians place Mahavira in the 6th–5th century BCE” would be both accurate and in better flow with the next sentence. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

And, I agree with you regarding the use of honorifics - they should not be included in the sentence. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I think you are little confused. This sentence isn't added by me. It's part of the article for a very long time. I just restored it after it was removed by a particular editor two days ago, you can check that in article's edit history. Regarding the confusion you are talking about, I don't see anything wrong in format or confusing about this sentence. There is comma before the sentence talks about historians and "although" in the starting of a sentence makes it obvious that both parts are different. Any person who knows English can understand it, there isn't any grammatical mistake in the sentence. The sentence is well sourced and is part of the stable version of the article for a very long time. Hbanm (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hbanm - I understand your point, but I think you may be missing mine. Yes, the sentence has been part of the article for a long time, but that doesn't automatically make it the best possible wording - Wikipedia is always open to improvement.

The concern here is not grammar but clarity and accuracy. The point is how the sentence appears to readers. As written, the sentence gives the impression that even the dates of Mahavira's life vary by sect, which is not correct. Both sects, and historians universally, place him in the 6th-5th century BCE.

--⁠"Historians place Mahavira in the 6th–5th century BCE. The historicity of Mahavira is well-established and not in dispute among scholars.”

This keeps the sense of the sources without creating unnecessary confusion for readers. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hbanm I have edited it in an encyclopedic tone. Please don’t stress too much; Please keep it simple and reader friendly. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to revert it because it removes the important and sourced content. When the sentence says that "dates and historical details of Mahavira's life are uncertain and varies among the sects" it's different from "historians dates him between particular year". You have understand that "historical details" and "historicity" are two different things. Historicity means that historians are certain that Mahavira existed that's it. The source clearly says " From birth place to married status to year he was born, everything varies among the sects". It was in the encyclopedic tone previously, you can't omit important sourced information in the name of making it user friendly. I recommend you reading the sources properly. Hbanm (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

For your information, the lead should be concise and simple, so there’s no need to go into too much detail here. Most readers spend only a minute or so on the lead, so it should highlight only the key points. According to Wikipedia’s Manual of Style, the lead is meant to summarize the most important points, while detailed information belongs in the body of the article. please read MOS:LEAD. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

It is already concise and simple, you want to remove the important information just because you don't like it. I know about MOS:LEAD and it says that important information should be in the lead. You don't own the article to decide what's important and what's not. This information was kept in lead because it's important, previous editors were not fools to keep this important information in the lead. Hbanm (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I recommend you to read MOS: LEAD properly, instead of suggesting me to read it. MOS:LEAD clearly says, "The lead should include the prominent controversies" Hbanm (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you please clarify which controversy you are referring to regarding Mahavir,s birth timing? How many historians have expressed this disagreement, and between which historians does this controversy exist? Please provide the names of the historians and reliable sources so it can be accurately reflected. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hbanm As I mentioned, Wikipedia is always for improvement. It doesn't matter whether previous editors included certain content or -as you mentioned previous editors were not fools not-this makes no difference to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is constantly evolving, and articles are continually improved by many editors. Content does not stay forever just because it existed before; if it doesn't follow guidelines or readability standards, it should be revised. The lead should remain concise and reader-friendly, while detailed information can be included in the body of the article. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not the controversy between the historians but between the sects. And I believe sects are prominent part of the Jainism, even more than historians for Jains. You should read the article properly before replying to me. The article doesn't talk about controversies between historians but sects. And if you want to know about controversies between sects, read the sources. Hbanm (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

And improvement doesn't mean to remove the important information which you don't like. The lead is designed as per the MOS:LEAD, you want to change it, use the talk page Hbanm (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Could you please specify which historian mentions that the two sects have different views on Mahavir's birth timing? As i told you the differing points of view between sects mainly concern other issues, such as marriage, rather than his birth period. For clarity and accuracy, it would be helpful to see reliable sources supporting the claim about a sect-related controversy on his birth timing. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Stop mixing the Historians and Sects together, historians don't care about sects and vice-versa. The articles says that same thing, "The birth and information is uncertain and varies among the sects" (Read reference no. 14 properly to know about the differences and controversies among the sects and they are not minimal, to be not included in the lead). Although there is also debate among historians but that is not that big to include in the lead, so it's in the body of the article (Read reference no.25 for it). Hbanm (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Namadhari Gowdas. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Northernhenge (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Dilip Surana. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources, it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Charlie (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Micro Labs Limited. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Charlie (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I noticed your changes on Premchand Roychand. I would like to highlight that the change you made was a cause of a previous edit war. I have restored it to a more stable version. I have seen you are engaged in other edit wars as on Mahavira and Pārśvanātha. I urge you to try reaching consensus on the content disagreement before making further changes, in the best interests of the encyclopedia that Wikipedia is. Thank you. Fawks3107 (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Fawks3107, Please see Talk:Premchand Roychand for my detailed response regarding the lead section and related edits. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Mahavira, did not appear to be constructive and have 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. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mahavira. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Joshua Jonathan#October 2025 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If an edit seems like vandalism but you cannot confirm that it likely is, don't warn the user. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. This "warning" diff; see my cmt there. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kundakunda. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

This revert diff, edit-summary Reverting addition non-neutral content, violates WP:NPOV. - appears promotional or agenda-driven is outright silly. It's a summary of what the source says, an explanation of what's already there. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
This too is incompetent editing; the three references which you retained argue for a later date than the 6th century. You didn't bother to fheck what these sources say, nor did you figure out that those refefences, placed after "many historians," are the references for this statement. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I've checked those references carefully, and I couldn't find any statement in them about the dates you mentioned. Could you please specify the exact page numbers or quotations where they argue for a later date? Without that, it's difficult to verify your claim. Thanks. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Pagenumbers are given in the references. I just checked Dundas; plain in sight. So what did you exactly check, you think? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Thanks for checking! I couldn’t find it myself, so I really appreciate your effort. It would be very helpful if you could share the exact page number-I'll check it once.

and As far as I can see, the reference doesn’t actually include a page number Starry Pine (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

This is worse than silly; the quote is on that page. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

You're edit-warring diff, again, mass-reverting because you want to conceal inconsistencies between two sects. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Who is adding large amounts of one-sided content - you or me? Please check the diff yourself; it’s clear that you have been adding large amounts of one-sided content, not me. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

And You haven't given the page number for this line -

“argue that the traditional dates for Mahavira also are too early, by as much as one century, since Mahavira and Buddha were contemporaries.”

Could you please provide the exact page number? I wasn't able to find this statement in the cited material, and I’d like to verify the source myself. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The "one-sided content" is the basic information that the Jain-tradition gives two different death-dates; and more information on the calendar on which the Jain-dates are based. What's "one-sided" about that? The fact that it puts Jain-narratives, your narrative, into question? Regarding the later dating, four references had been given. The revised dating of the Buddha is basic knowledge in Indian history. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

But if you're really unable to see the pagenumber: Dundas p.24, Kuiper p.144. BBC and Shaw are websites. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

You have reached WP:3RR at Mahavira, but still not given an adequate argument why no additional scholarly info on the Jain-dating of Mahavira should be given. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ixudi (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Starry Pine,

Please come to the discussion on AN to respond to the charges of discrimination laid against you. It's important that we hear from you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Liz,

Thank you for informing me. I've joined the AN discussion as requested.~~ Starry Pine (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lalbhai Group is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lalbhai Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

11WB (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, 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.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

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.

Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 18:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Starry Pine:

In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has decided that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of the community if you have more questions.

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Starry Pine, and welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed your interactions with Joshua Jonathan at Mahavira, and in particular, your series of escalating warnings from level 1 to 4 at User talk:Joshua Jonathan#October 2025. All of those warnings are invalid and borderline abusive, and were you a more experienced editor I would have strongly warned you about disruption and possibly also about avoiding personal attacks. However, you are still a new editor here, so you get some slack that a more experienced user doing the same thing would not get, so I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia written by volunteers, and that we try to collaborate with each other and find consensus to improve articles through discussion of article content on article Talk pages.

If you have a content disagreement with an editor, please use the Talk page to Talk it out, and assume that they are here to improve the article, just like you are. Please avoid templating or accusing users of misconduct when they simply disagree with your views on article content.

Please consider this message as just some earnest advice from another editor who hopes you will become a valued and productive editor, and wants to help you avoid some pitfalls that could get in your way. Now that you have been informed about consensus and collaboration, and the negative effects of unwarranted templating, I hope we won't see any more of that from you going forward. Rather than templating someone if you think there has been editor misconduct, I strongly suggest you go to the Wikipedia:Teahouse, and ask the helpful editors there whether what you are seeing is a real problem and worth raising at the editor's Talk page or elsewhere, or just a content disagreement that should be talked out at the Talk page. You are also welcome to come to my Talk page any time, and ask me, if you wish. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Ignoring my warning here, as well as Phil Bridger's advice that "Any reasonable suspicions of sockpuppetry should be taken to WP:SPI rather than aspersions be cast", you have continued to attack Joshua Jonathan and others at WP:AN with vague and general accusations (with very few diffs), and to broadly hint that three opponents of yours are coordinating or perhaps socking (instead of drawing the conclusion that several people disagree with you, and that they consequently are the ones who have consensus). I will quote a comment in the AN discussion from Joshua Jonathan, a highly experienced editor who you could learn a lot from if you were open to it: "Wikipedia summarizes scholarly publications; it's not the place to defend religious convictions". I have blocked you for 60 hours for persistently uncollaborative editing, assumptions of bad faith, and misuse of sources (frequently removing good sources). See also the post about unwarranted templating just above. Considering the situation, I regard this as a short block. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 10:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC).

The article Baman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:N

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 0xReflektor (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Please stick to scholarly datings, instead of pushing traditional datings. Take this ss warning. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The dates I added are also based on scholarly sources. Please discuss this further on Kunda Kunda's talk page. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Jain sources. As a further warning: don't remove the mention of Buddhist influences. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You're edit-warring, again; this time at Kundakunda, on the dating and the Buddhist influences. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:00, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page before removing content. You have removed sourced content on the Kunda Kunda page and seem to be adding POV. First, provide proof for the 8th-century dates. I am not engaging in edit-warring; the sources you added are unsupported claims. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

There are sources there. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I told you to discuss first on the talk page. If you believe the 8th century is correct, please gain consensus before making any edits. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You have reached WP:3RR, again. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

And breached it diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

And edit-warring at Samayasāra as well. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I have already told you on your talk page. Your sources are unsupported, and your edits reflect POV. You are also reverting without engaging in discussion. Please gain consensus first; I am ready to acknowledge any verified sources. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

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. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

After warning you above in this section about your unwarranted templating of Joshua Jonathan, after your block expired, and after explaining to you yet again in blunt detail at his Talk page (diff), I see now that I had missed your earlier foray into browbeating J.J. yet again here. This disruption needs to stop now. Further comments at his Talk page may be seen as a personal attack subject to sanctions, including increasingly long blocks. In my opinion, you are already at risk for an indefinite block, and I would tread very carefully now, and be careful what you say and do.

This is a friendly word to let you know that you have gotten very seriously off the track at Wikipedia, and you need an immediate course correction before you have a train wreck and get permanently booted off the project. Help is available, but you must ask for it. I strongly advise you to seek assistance from an editor you trust, or at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, or via the WP:MENTORSHIP program, before it is too late. Imho, you don't have much time left to steady the course; your behavior must change immediately, or you will not be around for much longer. I wish you all the best, Mathglot (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You haven't used warning templates at User talk:Joshua Jonathan after your previous block expired. That's good, as far as it goes. You have, however, gone there and bludgeoned the user. I now tell you: leave Joshua Jonathan alone on their talkpage. Discuss changes to the article only on the article talkpage, or on relevant noticeboards. If your comments there are specifically aimed at JJ, you may ping them. All this will have to be later, as I am now blocking you for a week for edit warring at Kundakunda. You know how to appeal the block. Regard it as a last chance before an indefinite block. Bishonen | tålk 09:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC).

Your are just a biased idiot. You don't deserve Wikipedia administrator right. Joshua is pushing Buddhist pov on all Jain pages. 2603:8000:2F0:8100:652A:FFC8:7781:216E (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bishonen: looks like they're continuing, now with an IP. See also Kanji Swami. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Stop crying Buddhist clown 2603:8000:2F0:8100:652A:FFC8:7781:216E (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

One more personal attack and/or block evasion, and I will extend your temporary block to indef. Your move. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure that now Joshua will wait for their friends to revert all edits so that they collectively never hit 3RR. It won't help. Better stop now before I invite 100 other Jain editors to disrupt all Buddhism pages and snowball into full fledged war. 2603:8000:2F0:8100:652A:FFC8:7781:216E (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bishonen: I believe the user needs to be indefinitely blocked considering their comments after your block! Ekdalian (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't like to do that since I'm the target of some of their compliments, and also since DoubleGrazing warned them of being indeffed if there was more (with an implication that if there isn't more, they won't be). However, Double Grazing, I do think threats like this from the IP deserve more than the one week you've given them (even though Wikipedia wouldn't exactly be helpless before the "100 other Jain editors"). I suggest at least a month (for Starry Pine as well, since it's obviously all one person). Bishonen | tålk 15:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC).

I try to be conservative with range blocks, even IPv6 ones, but Bish has talked me into upgrading it.

As for Starry Pine, I now realise that their comments on the IP talk page were, of course, another BE, so I guess that was their way of saying they do want to be indeffed. Consider it done. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, DoubleGrazing. A /64 is technically a "range", yes, but I don't feel it's a real range - not in the blocking sense. Bishonen | tålk 15:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC).

Yes, I see what you mean. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly, the list of articles edited by range /64 does not expand all the way through */56. Not until you get to */54 do you get four more articles in the list (see here). So I think you are pretty safe with /64. Mathglot (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@331dot, Thank you for reviewing my case. I understand your concern but that comments made after my temporary block were not by me. I was actually on a trip and not active on Wikipedia during that time. I have no reason or intention to use any other account or IP to continue editing I value my work here and have always tried to follow the rules.

It seems that someone else might have acted pretending to be me, which unfortunately led to this misunderstanding. I've always tried to contribute constructively and follow Wikipedia's principles in good faith. I sincerely request you to reconsider the indefinite block or allow me a chance to demonstrate my sincerity and commitment through future edits.

And honestly, why would I risk my account after spending so much time contributing here? I truly value my work and reputation within the community. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Admins, @Bishonen @DoubleGrazing please disregard those remarks - they are not my words.

I was on a trip during that period and did not even see those messages until much later. The remarks made by that IP are completely unrelated to my account. If there is any doubt, I kindly request that you verify the IP addresses to confirm this. I believe this may have been a misunderstanding that led to the indefinite block. ~~ Starry Pine (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

You may make a new request for someone else to review. If you want to discuss private or other sensitive information, you may use WP:UTRS. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Baman, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Starry Pine. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Namadhari Gowdas, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Starry Pine. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dilip Surana, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)