Hello, ScientificQuest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello ScientificQuest. I just want to say that I like and appreciate the interesting and valuable material you have added to the 'Anatta' entry. Certain other Wikipedia 'editors', however, may not be so welcoming. Good luck! From Suddha.
Suddha (
talk)
05:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi SQ. I found your addition to Anatta of conceiving non-self as a skillfull action every helpfull! After 26 years of studying Buddhism, this was a piece of information which clarified my understanding basically. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
ScientificQuest ( talk) 04:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Calling Kalupahana "original research" is, strictly speaking, correct: it is his (scholarly) understanding of this topic. Yet, you seem to be using it as it is being used at Wikipedia. And that's not correct. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, such as Kalupahana. You're giving your personal understanding of the Nikaya's, arguing against Kalupahana - and that's indeed WP:OR as the term is being used at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't go by (i) reports, by (ii) legends, by (iii) traditions, by (iv)scripture, by (v) logical conjecture, by (vi) inference, by (vii) analogies, by (viii) agreement through pondering views, by (ix) probability, or by the (x) thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Anatta, but we cannot accept original research. "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Thank you. JimRenge ( talk) 16:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi ScientificQuest. I've rolled-back your post at Anatta again. It's the third time that you add your personal analysis. It lacks indepedentent sources, and mainly represents a Theravada point of view. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't give up, you're definitely on a good track. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC) |
Hi, just to let you know that I am in process of preparing a DRN Notice about Joshua Jonathan's edits. And to support you in the discussion - I think he has treated you badly, reverting your edits without any discussion of the actual content of what you added to the article.
I've also posted to the article in support of your edits, see Again
For details of the dispute, see: Dispute overview.
Robert Walker ( talk) 11:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
To reassure to SQ: this has nothing to do with you. Your edits are welcome; if I can help you further, please let me know. I already told you earlier that your edits were helpfull to me personally. I'm looking forward to the academic sources you've got to offer. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi SQ. You asked me tell more about what to do. The answer is quite simple: menton the sources you've been using, with specific pagenumbers, so others can follow and, when they feel so, check your info. Threat Wikipedia as an academical paper: what would Fronsdahl want to see in such a paper? I hope you will share your info; I appreciate your info, but it simply needs more and better sourcing. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Anatta, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. VictoriaGrayson Talk 16:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Translations are PRIMARY SOURCES. VictoriaGrayson Talk 18:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies; highly appreciated.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
08:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, ScientificQuest, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello ScientificQuest. I just want to say that I like and appreciate the interesting and valuable material you have added to the 'Anatta' entry. Certain other Wikipedia 'editors', however, may not be so welcoming. Good luck! From Suddha.
Suddha (
talk)
05:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi SQ. I found your addition to Anatta of conceiving non-self as a skillfull action every helpfull! After 26 years of studying Buddhism, this was a piece of information which clarified my understanding basically. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
ScientificQuest ( talk) 04:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Calling Kalupahana "original research" is, strictly speaking, correct: it is his (scholarly) understanding of this topic. Yet, you seem to be using it as it is being used at Wikipedia. And that's not correct. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, such as Kalupahana. You're giving your personal understanding of the Nikaya's, arguing against Kalupahana - and that's indeed WP:OR as the term is being used at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't go by (i) reports, by (ii) legends, by (iii) traditions, by (iv)scripture, by (v) logical conjecture, by (vi) inference, by (vii) analogies, by (viii) agreement through pondering views, by (ix) probability, or by the (x) thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Anatta, but we cannot accept original research. "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Thank you. JimRenge ( talk) 16:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi ScientificQuest. I've rolled-back your post at Anatta again. It's the third time that you add your personal analysis. It lacks indepedentent sources, and mainly represents a Theravada point of view. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't give up, you're definitely on a good track. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC) |
Hi, just to let you know that I am in process of preparing a DRN Notice about Joshua Jonathan's edits. And to support you in the discussion - I think he has treated you badly, reverting your edits without any discussion of the actual content of what you added to the article.
I've also posted to the article in support of your edits, see Again
For details of the dispute, see: Dispute overview.
Robert Walker ( talk) 11:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
To reassure to SQ: this has nothing to do with you. Your edits are welcome; if I can help you further, please let me know. I already told you earlier that your edits were helpfull to me personally. I'm looking forward to the academic sources you've got to offer. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi SQ. You asked me tell more about what to do. The answer is quite simple: menton the sources you've been using, with specific pagenumbers, so others can follow and, when they feel so, check your info. Threat Wikipedia as an academical paper: what would Fronsdahl want to see in such a paper? I hope you will share your info; I appreciate your info, but it simply needs more and better sourcing. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Anatta, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. VictoriaGrayson Talk 16:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Translations are PRIMARY SOURCES. VictoriaGrayson Talk 18:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies; highly appreciated.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
08:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)