Hello, If you don't mine. Please kindly search for some significant information on
Draft:Pee sao tukta mai because I can't read Thai without machine translation. Thanks
Taung Tan (
talk) 06:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Taung Tan sure thing, I did research Thai shrine books, there is no reliable story of Pee sao tukta mai (
Thai: พี่สาวตุ๊กตาไม้) or Peesao Tonmai (
Thai: พี่สาวต้นไม้). I did not find Thai shrine books academically mentioned Pee sao tukta mai as well-known
Spirit house. In my opinion, Pee sao tukta mai is a personal belief, transient news or hearsay of Thai influencers to gain their own reputations and to gamble in order to purchase government lottery.
According to Matichon news[1], head of a Buddhist monastery of Wat Suan Kaew temple in Nonthaburi said that do not believe it, it will deteriorate over time.[2] It's just kind of disrepair Buddha in art (
Thai: พระพุทธวิโมกข์). From Jan 2023, no longer news about Pee sao tukta mai available.
Quantplinus (
talk) 09:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks. You did not find her in Thai shrine books or academic papers because she is a modern spirit. Yes, she has vanished from the news since January 2023. So I need to wait before some information is available.
Taung Tan (
talk) 10:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
Songkran, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages
French,
Thai and
Burmese. 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) 18:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
April 2024
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.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 21:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
According to my revert of
Songkran and your mentioned about
edit war to me.
The reason I have reverted change(s) made by User
Pierrevang3 who tried to spread false information that Songkran is a Khmer word which is not true. I have some academic resources to let you know. The term Songkran is Thai word as the following proofs,
In
Google Book and search with "Songkran is a Thai word" AND "The term Songkran is a Thai word" (included Quotation marks for exact result).
And also compare search result of "Songkran is a Khmer word" and check the Phonetic notation topic in
Talk:Songkran
Doctoral Dissertation p. 334 said:- "The term Songkran is a Thai word meaning to move".
I hope that you are understand the situation and proceeding under the rule
Wikipedia:Don't lie to the article, and would you please remove edit war warning on my talk page if my arguments are true and correct. Thank you.
Quantplinus (
talk) 03:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a content dispute. Excessive reverting in that context is completely unacceptable. You are expected to resolve your differences with other editors through discussion, and to exercise restraint until such discussions have reached their conclusion. Continue as you have been once the page protection expires and you will quickly find yourself blocked.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 14:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply