This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi Victoria. Thank you very much for this User talk:Joshua Jonathan#2 Edit Requests on HINDUISM page this source! I'm really delighted to see support for historical facts, instead of the ongoing debates based on modern mythology. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
You can add whatever you see in the reference or even summarize. But remember that the page is really very long right now, compare it with Christianity or Islam, you will know. Thank you for your edits. Bladesmulti ( talk) 05:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I really appreciate your use of sources and quotes; they invite further inquiry, instead of useless "discussions" between fixed points of view. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, your recent anti-Bush edit to the 2012 Benghazi article lede [1] was undone by another editor here [2] with an explanation: "(I don't see Bush referenced in the source provided for this. Also, it's not clear why this belongs in the lede.)" I agree. I kindly request that you limit yourself to constructive and legitimate edits, particularly to the lede. We're working to keep the article complete and balanced and up to date. Thanks much! -- Cirrus Editor ( talk) 02:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
"Continuity of the personality" or "continuity of mind or awareness"?!? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your note on my talk page. I think I checked to late. I am very infrequently here … Kt66 ( talk) 00:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! I hope you don't mind that I reverted your removal of sources at Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, I was actually thinking if we could discuss about that first at the Talk Page? =P I agree that Tony Page isn't a Buddhist scholar, he is merely made some English translations of the scriptures. When it comes to translations even, I don't think one should be a Buddhist scholar to qualify. Similarly we are using Philip Kapleau's Three pillars of Zen as a source for Zen Buddhism even he was a mere practicant without any academic qualifications in the subject. Cheers! :) Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 18:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Copied to Talk:Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra#Tony Page's translation
Good morning, Vic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've started to try and consolidate the References a little. I think wherever possible best to just use the {{sfn}} template for references and point to the "Main sources". Best to avoid named references on such a changing article as if the first named reference in a series gets deleted then the rest in the series get broken. Thanks. Chris Fynn ( talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden controversy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Fynn ( talk) 19:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atmananda Krishna Menon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you review my recent edits to Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. Thanks. Chris Fynn ( talk) 22:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right. The late Dr. Usula Bernis is not an independent source. She was a long time student and a biographer of the previous Tomo Geshe who propagated the practice of Shugden and was a Shugden practitioner herself. I understand she was also an associate of Thomas Canada, who appears to be the most virulent of contributors to pro-Shugden / anti-Dalai Lama sites and Facebook pages. Some of his comments simply seethe with pure hatred. If he is an example of what may happen to a person who has worshipped Shugden for years, it is pretty nasty. Chris Fynn ( talk) 21:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Have you noticed that 37 seems to be quite a popular number? Prasangika37, Essence37, Audrey37 ... Chris Fynn ( talk) 06:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
And further, you may want to consider the possibility of a magic unicorn? (grin) Montanabw (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You're close at my tail! Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This is what I was afraid with Bhutanic's edits. (S)he seldom added any sources, but I wanted to assume good faith since (s)he obviously made a lot of effort with respect to that article. I totally agree with your revert though. And of course, Bhutanic has the chance to restore any paragraph as long as (s)he can provide a decent source supporting the edit! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 22:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Kadampa Tradition Survivors 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/New Kadampa Tradition Survivors until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
If you have any time left over from the never ending battle with NKT pods and their NPOV edits, would you kindly look at Shambhala Training. IMO that article relies far too heavily on primary sources. The only secondary or tertiary sources cited are where the article explains some Tibetan terms and concepts. There are no objective secondary sources used in relation to Shambhala Training itself. Consequently the article reads like a subjective promotional piece - not an encyclopaedic article. I've left a note about this on the talk page of the article as well. Chris Fynn ( talk) 16:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
As requested, I have closed the merge discussion with consensus to merge. An administrator is needed to merge the histories. I have not attempted to actually merge the articles, since this is not an area with which I am familiar except by reviewing the articles in preparation for closing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Could you please explain to me on my talk page what the issue is anyway? I can see that there is an issue about whether particular Buddhist sources are primary or secondary. Other than that, I can see that I was asked, essentially out of nowhere, to look at an issue in which I had no previous involvement, and very little knowledge. I also see that another editor says that there is a conduct issue, but I have no idea what the conduct issue is. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Kt66 ( talk) 09:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
According to Dr. Alexander Berzin, Tsongkhapa received his main Kadampa teachings from a Nyingma lama:
"There was a very famous Nyingma lama at the time called Lhodrag Namka-gyeltsen, and this Nyingma lama had, continually, visions of Vajrapani. And he invited Tsongkhapa, and they became mutual teacher and disciple. It’s from this Nyingma lama that Tsongkhapa got his main lam-rim transmissions from the Kadam tradition – two of the main Kadam lineages. There are three Kadampa lineages that had split. He got two of them from this Nyingma lama and one from a Kagyu lama. The Kadampa was divided into three: One was the lam-rim teachings, one was the textual teachings, and one was the oral guideline teachings. So he got the lam-rim and the oral guideline lineages from this Nyingma lama, and the textual tradition from a Kagyu lama. This I find very interesting. One always thinks that he got them from Kadampa lamas; he didn’t. And that Gelugpa was so separate from all these other traditions; it wasn’t. "
So Tsongkhapa's lineage of Kadampa teachings, which Geshe Kelsang the NKT and other "Shugden Buddhists" claim to be heir to, came via a lineage which passed through Nyingma lamas. Today "Shugden Buddhists" criticise HHDL for taking teachngs from Nyingma lamas and mixing them with the "pure" tradition of Tsongkhapa. If Je Tsongkhapa had had that kind of narrow sectarian view there would have been no tradition of Kadampa teachings including Lam Rim passed down in Tsongkhapa's Gelugpa tradition.
Chris Fynn ( talk) 11:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Good morning Vic. I'm trying to refrain as much as possible from responding in this hopeless discussion, since every response provokes another round of miscomprehension; it's leading nowhere. People who don't understand the difference between faith and scholarship, and don't understand proper arguments, can't be convinced. "You can lead the donkey to the well, but you can't force it to drink." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)keep
I'm sorry for losing it on the talk page and getting myself blocked. The final trigger on my side was when you pinged fellow editors. This whole dispute has felt so acrimonious from the start that the ping looked sinister.
The block has had a silver lining. I must admit, I needed some time out. It's been a circuit breaker.
I still have the same problems with content but I hope there is some way we can eventually make headway with collaborating. Moonsell talk 01:56, 22 December 2014
As far as I know you, you don't encourage this ;) Anyway, best wishes! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
You deserve a barnstar Tito☸ Dutta 21:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC) |
I've made a concrete proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Feel like helping with the COI at Aro gTér? That page needs a hard woman like you, got a problem COI editor who is obviously a shill but honestly you are better at calling out problematic pages than I am. Ogress smash! 07:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@ VictoriaGrayson:, things are getting out of hand on the talk page again and I'm outnumbered by apparent meatpuppets. Unrelatedly, I noticed Prasangika37 show up there, is he edit-stalking you? Ogress smash! 17:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aro gTér 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/Aro gTér until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Montanabw (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Lily W ( talk) 02:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
diff: thanks! You made me laugh again, with a broad grin; that's highly appreciated. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm always happy to see people willing to partake in the wikipedia project. However you only have to mark text as belonging to a primary source - there is no need to delete it. Deletion in these cases often denies the opportunity for editors to provide context to what is written there. In this case, there is a huge surfeit of written material that focusses on the Madhyamaka approach to Anatta - so much so that I considered it best to go 'back' to a well recognised scholarly commentary of a commentary of a text.
You and I probably differ regarding our definitions of 'Primary' vs 'Secondary' sources. I, for one, do not consider it necessary (although I agree it is preferred) for a secondary source to be contemporaneous, or written in English. I also recognise the long traditions of scholarship that are found within the Buddhist monastic universities - and I believe that they have been as subject to rigourous peer review as anything which is found in our modern times.
I also believe that a text can be both a primary source (when it is the subject of a discourse, it becomes a primary source) but also a secondary source (it can still be informative with regards to what it is commenting upon) - and indeed, I believe that this is generally accepted, if not widely understood.
Here is a reference to an old part of the RS page. (I've been here since 2004, so things do change). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years – or even centuries. The sacred or original text(s) of the religion will always be primary sources, but any other acceptable source may be a secondary source in some articles. For example, the works of Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a Roman Catholic perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for Thomas Aquinas or Summa Theologica.
I am begging you to tag offending text as PRIMARY where it offends you, but NOT to delete it - unless you have something to replace it that improves upon the quality of source..
If you wish to discuss this further, don't hesitate. ( 20040302 ( talk) 12:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC))
Other for being "recognized" as a tulku - which hundreds of people are - is this person, Karma Thubten Trinlay Gyurme, notable? Chris Fynn ( talk) 09:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that you ignore it. He has been working on it for a long time and will probably continue working on it for a long time. I don't think that he has a clue how DRN works, which is that the process unfolds after a mediator accepts the case. He seems to think that DRN is a way to get content disputes resolved by a third party, rather than a way for a third party to help the editors resolve content disputes. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Using Advaita Vedanta scholars to discuss the meaning and prevalence of Anutpada in Buddhism needs qualifying, Victoria. It is true that it is found used a lot in prajnaparamita literature, but it does not play a major role in the madhyamaka literature. Please use RS that belong to the context. The Anutpada article looks suspiciously like WP:SYN / WP:ORIG. 10:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, great - in which case, why not cite these sources and the televant domain-specific scholars, rather than scholars of a Hindu tradition? 20040302 ( talk) 01:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Here we go again... This guy seems to be on a crusade. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "New Kadampa Tradition page usage of "Cult" in Lede". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 April 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning New Kadampa Tradition page usage of "Cult" in Lede, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 13:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Should "Cult" be used in lead of the page about a Buddhist tradition, the New Kadampa Tradition". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 April 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Should "Cult" be used in lead of the page about a Buddhist tradition, the New Kadampa Tradition, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 14:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
With respect, wouldn't these edits be allowed under WP:PRIMARY? (as they are "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge") The information given wasn't interpreted and therefore wouldn't require a secondary source in this context. Helpsome ( talk) 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm beginning to understand more of your dislike of Tsongkhapa, and his fellows. They haven't been too friendly of the "essentialists," haven't they? While the "essentialist" position can't be discarded from Buddhism; it may even have been an integrral part of the earliest Buddhism, while (Prasangika-)Nadhyamaka was a later development, carrying dependent origination and anatman to a truly new understanding. Best regards, 13:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!
Center of the Sunlit Sky p.587. So, explain to me, what's the relevance? You once replied somewhere, if I remember correct, on the question what is the connection between several lifes, that it is karmic consequences (you didn't write exactly that, but this is what I remember). So, please explain, what's the relevance? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Svatantrika is actually a Tibetan polemical category which is only vaguely based on Indian texts. VictoriaGrayson Talk 18:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The ignorance of clinging to "me". Nagarjuna says:
"The clinging to “me” is exhausted, and thus karma and birth too."
VictoriaGrayson Talk 22:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The main point of Madhyamaka and most Mahayana Sutras is Nonarisal. Everything is illusion. Tsongkhapa ignores all this.
Ok - but he is, frankly, wrong. They do not. ( 20040302 ( talk))
Hey Vicky, it'd be better if you bolded your vote for śramaṇa at Talk:Sramana; I had set the vote to shramana but then when you suggested the IAST, I preferred it and the editor reviewing the section noted that there was no need to reopen the discussion, but merely indicate vote preference. Right now, your only bolded vote preference is oppose; if you add/change it to move to śramaṇa things might go faster? Ogress smash! 21:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No question that the Human Rights in Tibet article reads like something written on behalf of the Chinese government. It's junk. But, it is best to quietly rework it in a step by step fashion, section by section, quietly, with very solid sources and keeping as much of the old stuff as possible, though sometimes reworked. (usually with a structure that meets NPOV by stating "source X says foo but source Y says oof!." ). I love BRD. You will never get consensus with a POV-pusher, all you can do is write BETTER and more balanced text, then go to 3O or wherever and get some people to agree with you. I used to have a boss at a job who said, "don't come to me with a problem unless you also have a solution." Hope this helps! Montanabw (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Given your editing interests, you might want to keep an eye on the Dalai Lama article. A guy giving me serious cold-hot hostility issues is editing the crap out of it, and I'm dubious that the article is not going to need serious defragmenting and degaussing as he's openly stated on Talk that he is there on DL because he thinks it's been edited by people not "supportive" of the Dalai Lamas and that people claiming to be tulkus who aren't really reincarnates will be rightfully dispossessed of their roles by the Tibetan people (yeah, seriously, he said that).
Personally I'm fine letting him info-dump the page with cites and then picking apart problematic areas, as he correctly notes that we have wiki pages on each of the Dalai Lamas but only mention like two of them on the Dalai Lama page itself. However, he is pretty hostile to me; for example, claiming my use of the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism is because I studied Korean Seon about the same time as one of its editors, Robert Buswell Jr., which is... I mean, I think you see where this is going.. Ogress smash! 00:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, you're right. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@ VictoriaGrayson: @ Cwobeel: Your comments, reverting my edited revision 667641821, and those of Cwobeel, belong on a Talk Page. Discussions such as yours and Cwobeel's should not generally be conducted in Undo or Revert edit summaries, which are not intended for that purpose. Also, insofar as you have standing with "pending changes reviewer rights", you should really try to show less bias if you choose to label a well-established news outlet source as not "neutral" enough. What do you consider a "more neutral" major news media source? -- Please provide me with an example or two of those that you deem more suitably "neutral". Also, I would advise that you should generally confine any discussions, such as statements of your personal opinions regarding news source's relative neutrality (of, say, The Washington Post vs. the Wall Street Journal) only to Talk Pages, and attempt to limit yourself, in any editing, to only constructive and legitimate edits. I'm just curious --- would you consider, say, the Washington Post more neutral, in your opinion, than the Wall Street Journal? Fox News Politics less neutral than, say, Media Matters? Professor JR ( talk) 10:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The Half Barnstar | ||
One half for you, the other half for Ms Sarah Welch, for your joint work on Yoga and the Yoga Sutras. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC) |
And also a cup of tea, for edit-summaries like "changed my mind", asking questions at talkpages, and referring to noteworthy videos. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC) |
The whole religious views section of that article is an unsourced quagmire from beginning to end, I just added multiple tags. I don't favor blanking stuff that is on the right track just because it's unsourced, but clearly there is some serious work that needs to happen there. Montanabw (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have created a discussion on the recent issues regarding WP:Caste system In India in ANI and specifically reported suspicious behavior of concerted behavior of a group of editors including you. Have a look. Regards AB Talk 08:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Transformed: that's the kind of nuance were I'm simply lacking in fluency. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the 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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 June 2015
Hi Vic. Something completely different from all the discussions: do you know this book The Hidden Lives of Brahman? I just acquired it, and it looks very promising. It uses both textal analysis and Anthropological fieldwork to describe Shankara's Vedanta as a practice to alter one's view and experience of reality. I thought you might like it too, given your interest in the topic and your preference for academic publications. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: don't forget to add a reference; as it is now, it might be reverted. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I know you are the one person on Wikipedia who will simply nod when I say with great irritation, "Why is Tsongkhapa such rubbish!?" and not try to convince me of anything. (At least I hope so.) Okay, that's enough blowing-off steam. Back to the grind.
Oh, also, what pronouns should I be using for you? I hope that's not rude, but I just went with she but then I saw people using he, but then again they use he for me basically constantly... so while I'm here, if you want to register a preference (or lack of one), feel free to do so. (I myself use she, as might be expected from an ogress.) Ogress smash! 04:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
{{subst:arbcom notice| Talk Page Etiquette}} /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Talk_Page_Etiquette This is to confirm that you have been mentioned in an ArbCom discussion Soham321 ( talk) 09:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to advise that the "Talk Page Etiquette" arbitration case, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined by the committee on account of the fact that it appears to have been withdrawn. Further information is available at the above link. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 14:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
Hello, I'm Human3015. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Buddhism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Human3015 knock knock • 00:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
IDK if you have a second but this guy at Dvārakā keeps adding the Bhagavad Gita onto the page and I've reverted him twice already. He also removed the references tag. Ogress smash! 02:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi VictoriaGrayson,
You recently reverted my edit on the Sam Harris BLP page. I was wondering if you could expand on your reasoning? The page was using a gigantic quote in a BLP which is fairly POV. Further, the section I edited was badly structured. You're stated reasoning was that I was removing good faith material. I believe I added good faith material, and made the article much easier to read. I understand if you took umbrage with a few of my edits but to revert its entirety I believe is going to far.
Feel free to write back to me on my wall or in the section I opened regarding the smaller edit I made earlier on the Sam Harris talk page(or right here!).
YshuDS ( talk) 02:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant. We seem to agree, even though from different points of view. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting article you linked to, and a pretty stupid textbook-text indeed. It made me wonder what I think about Hinduism, and caste definitely is not the first thing that comes to my mind, nor the second or third. Complexity comes to my mind. If I had to "explain" Hinduism to my daughter, I'd probbaly start with "It's a term for a collection of (intertwined) religions which are practiced in India." And then I'd be specific; I guess like "The main denominations/Gods are Shiva and Vishnu" - my, I don't know. Luckily my daughter is open to nuance, and she's curious; she might say "Daddy, they are doing meditation too, don't they, just like you?" (To which I should reply, "No, I'm doing meditation, just like (some of) them.") Or I would tell her of a friend of mine, a Catholic-born westerner, who became a pandit (or so he says) with the Arya Samaj. Anyway, my association with Hinduism is "colourfull, inclusive, rich, tolerant." Also to mention: there's a large Hindu-community in the Netherlands, over 100,000 people (on a total of 17 million dutch); I used to know quite some Hindus. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
JJ, how would you explain to your child the fact that physicists use both particle and wave metaphors to understand light? Would you say that particle studies and light studies are "two intertwined fields of natural science" that are practiced in modern society (if so, you should familiarize yourself with how these fields, contenders in 1900, have been integrated)? Note that what you call the "denominations" of Shaivism and Vaishnavism are so intertwined that their shrines are frequently built as part of the same building or building complex, and this is not viewed as remarkable (for example, this is not commented upon in our article at Dakshineswar Kali Temple, nor do I recollect that it was found unusual or surprising when built in 1855). It would be interesting to know how far back in time this architectural "intertwining" goes (anybody know references?).
Evidence for deep "intertwining" appears on virtually every level -- scriptures where Shiva and Vishnu (or Vishnu's incarnations) each on occasion extoll the other as a representation of the supreme; philosophies about the nature of the ishta as different paths to the same realization; families where members have different ishtas, without trouble. I think the intertwining is much deeper and far-reaching than what you'd find between Baptists and Methodists, much less Baptists and Catholics. In many circles -- such as families that contain members with different ishtas -- the claim that these are different religions that do not belong to a larger encompassing tradition would have a hard time passing the laugh test, just as the notion that Franciscans and Dominicans are separate denominations would have a hard time passing a laugh test among Catholics.
Of course, just as the human weaknesses of bigotry and chauvanism may sometimes attach themselves to a religious "order", they may sometimes attach to different ishtas, but that does not mean that these are not validly recognized by cooler heads as part of one integrated religion, one deeply but not perfectly integrated tradition. But because of the lack of Indians in their ranks, few Indologists have had an on-the-ground insider familiarity with Hinduism. In that respect, academic Hindu Studies has been handicapped in comparison to studies of virtually any other major religious tradition, where the laugh test correctives have been more readily accessible. -- Presearch ( talk) 22:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Jonathan -- your lack of direct experience of Hinduism, which you candidly and freely and commendably reveal, is just the point: you cannot personally evaluate claims about contemporary Hinduism by comparing them with the common sense provided by your daily experience of Hinduism, since you have none (except perhaps a small bit vicariously through Hindu friends in the Netherlands). That's essentially what I meant by a "laugh test" -- the test provided by comparing with common sense. What has been exceptional about Hinduism Studies, in contrast to religious studies of almost any other major religious tradition, is that extremely few Indologists have had direct access to the "laugh test", i.e., direct access to the common sense provided by actual insider experience of Hinduism. (Rambachan is one of the main exceptions that comes to mind, and even he grew up in a western hemisphere diaspora). I'm not saying that such insider experience is infallible -- far from it, especially with regard to historical questions. But a muting of common sense (the inaccessibility of a "laugh test") makes it possible for other types of absurd misinterpretations to gain and maintain influence, especially if someone has a vested interest (religious or geopolitical) in promoting a particular misinterpretation.
What is so dispiriting at times about Malhotra is the ease with which he has been ready to confidently allege nefarious motives among any individual who disagrees with him, rather than showing a real-time recognition of the mixture of motives and influences at work. Religious and geopolitical influences may well be at work (I haven't read his Breaking India book, but I've read anthropology papers saying it was common knowledge that many anthropologists had been recruited by intelligence agencies). Less nefariously but still mistakenly, many scholars may be simply deluded by Indological "group-think" (perhaps abetted by a hidden geopolitical thumb on the scale), uncorrected by the common sense provided by insider lived experience. And misunderstanding of the present provides a distorted lense that can be read back into the past. For the fullest and most accurate acoounts, we need to be able to weave together the truths offered by both perspectives. But perhaps some parties have an interest in polarization. If we admit this possibility, then I would say: Do not blame it all on Malhotra's camp, one doesn't need to be a genius to see that there are interests on both sides who might prefer polarization.-- Presearch ( talk) 19:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Vic. Shall I install MiszaBot at your talkpage, for automatic archivation? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
You know me well. VictoriaGrayson Talk 06:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep watching the page; I expect a response by 81~14. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
€60... Sigh; above my budget. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.' Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) ' 18:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "2002 Gujarat Riots". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 September 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning 2002 Gujarat Riots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 22:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hi Vic; I purchased a copy yesterday at a New Age bookstore in Amsterdam, to my great surprise. Great book! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "2002 Gujarat Riots 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 September 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
VG, do you have access to JSTOR? (since I already have access, I am not asking for myself; if yes, I can point you to an article of possible interest) Thanks -- Presearch ( talk) 00:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Listen, I keep getting in trouble for making page moves or suggesting them. Can you please consider voting on Talk:Ksitigarbha#Requested move 15 September 2015 and Talk:Manjusri#Requested move 15 September 2015? People get annoyed about IAST titles, but when I move pages from incorrect romanisations to WP:COMMONNAME according to our Indic MOS, they also complain I didn't use a "move discussion" (to move pages according to our MOS!) - but then literally no one votes on move discussions. Ogress 19:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Please let me know when you find a university textbook or encyclopedia that says many scholars consider historical-Jesus methodology to be invalid. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 13:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning 2002 Gujarat Riots 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 21:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
You asked for advice from an admin, I am an admin so here is my advice. Please do not use an RfA to engage in a personal dispute [3]. If you wish to discuss User:Moonsells behaviour you can do it on your talk page, their talk page or if you really think it is a problem take it to one of the noticeboards.
It is however not acceptable for you to engage in such complaints in an unrelated forum like someone's RfA. I hope you understand why this is important. Chillum 05:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Please desist from restoring content sourced to Sonnenfeld at Carly Fiorina. There is a discussion regarding his reliability as a source. Per WP:BLP, the burden of proof for establishing the reliability of sources for adding content resides with the editor restoring it. Thanks CFredkin ( talk) 22:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree strongly with CFredkin, who is quite correct -- you should desist, please, from your non-constructive multiple attempts to restore content sourced to Sonnenfeld at Carly Fiorina! While I won't try to dispute your contention that you have "a very good understanding of WP:BLP", you seem to have missed the fact that Wikipedia BLP policy does put the burden of proof for the reliability of a source for adding content upon the editor (you) adding it or wanting to restore it. --- Professor JR ( talk) 10:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CFredkin ( talk) 16:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey Vic: breath in, breath out. Stay cool. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For calling it as it is. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC) |
My user access levels, which do not include administrator, may be found here [4]. NE Ent 02:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Stumbled across this today, may be useful to you: [5] Montanabw (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
You and your sunyata...
Okay, how about this explanation, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nagarjuna:
Does this explanation satisfy you? Bets regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Cpt.a.haddock. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Padmasambhava#The_obscure_sorcerer that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 20:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
What are you doing? I didn't finish editing. can you please wait a second before reverting. Read the explanation. Bodhadeepika ( talk) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I already had the feeling that somehow this wasn't correct... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you were already getting me upset... Isn't this one of the great feutures of Wikipedia: everybody is watching everybody? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Vic, you're somewhat acquainted with the topic of demons & spirits, therefor please your thoughts: Ramana Maharshi, after his "death-experience," at first thought that he was possessed by a spirit. He felt the presense of a "current" or "force," which he took to be his real self. In later life, he became acquainted with Vedantic literature, and recognised his "death-experience" as the "intuition of the enlightened." Devotees came to him for darshan, which he regarded to be his task in life. He was regarded to be Dakshinamurti, an incarnation of Shiva. According to Alan Edwards, the presentation of Ramana Maharshi was an "elite construction." This is in line with Sanskritization. Now, read this quote:
"The person on which the deity is thought to have descended"... Talking about contexts and framing. It may be that Ramana Maharshi should primarily be understood in the context of Tamil folk religion, and that this aspect of "spirit possession," and the shamanistic aspect of the holy man as the intermediair with the gods, is completely neglcted or overlooked in the western understanding of Ramana Maharshi. What do you think? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Please be mindful.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey Vic. Cool down. Writing in capitals may be a sign that you're losing your temper. You may be totally right, surrounded by an ocean of non-understanding, but in the end you'll be at the losing end when your temper takes charge. Take care, and best regards, as usual. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Happy Diwali!!! | ||
Sky full of fireworks, Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous
Diwali.
|
Happy Diwali!!! | ||
Sky full of fireworks, Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous
Diwali.
|
You are refusing to have a discussion. When you remove a source that's been on the articles static state. If someone disputes it. The static state gets prescience during the discussion. BTW, Brookings doesn't qualify for self published. It's not a blog.
Do not revert it again. I will report you for edit warring. -- Everyone Dies In the End ( talk) 21:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2011/01/26/house-section/article/H503-1
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/17/yemen.islam
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-obamas-migrants
http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-upping-aid-to-syrian-rebels-by-123-million/
Nocturnalnow ( talk) 04:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
You know your opposite votes for these two articles seems pretty odd. -- NeilN talk to me 17:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
If you are interested in a quick "info" thing as far as editors - there are some scripts you can add which show you a bunch of info at the top of user and user talk pages. For example - when I click on your user page or talk page - at the very top I see this:
User Liz recently showed me a new one, and it's likely either one of us would help you get that installed if you're interested. — Ched : ? 21:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi VictoriaGrayson. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! NeilN talk to me 06:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It's getting crowded at your userpage... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
please be so kind to provide a reliable source, in addition to removing info. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Advaita Vedanta may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Holidays and a Prosperous 2016!!! | |
Hello VictoriaGrayson, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this holiday season. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user happy holidays and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for New Year 2016. |
Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!
|
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄 | |
Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw (talk) |
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk) 21:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary
blisters. |
VictoriaGrayson,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 10:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Re your edit in History of India it is not at all clear where the reference to Shrauta sacrifices comes from since they are not mentioned before (the decline) and since the article on the practice doesn't mention sacrifices (though it lists various sacrifices in the See Also section). Would it be possible for you to clarify this by including something that indicates the role played by these rituals before the decline and/or elaborating in the related article? Thanks! -- regentspark ( comment) 23:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Nalanda. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents
consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
There's an ongoing discussion in the talk page. Discuss and gain consensus first. Reading up on
WP:BRD might also prove useful.
Cpt.a.haddock (
talk) (please ping when replying) 12:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I spent half an hour fixing the multiple reference errors on Dorje Shugden controversy. If you'd like to restore the lengthy quotations in the ref section (which are completely unnecessary as the sources are accessible), please go ahead. But by simply reverting my edits, you're reintroducing all the referencing errors I fixed (scroll down the page to see the big red warnings). That's utter disrespect of other people's work. - Zanhe ( talk) 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
A user has been edit warring with me just for spite on the History of Buddhism. The individual was not even involved in this article, but decided to revert all my edits. this map has nothing to do with this article. The map is regarding the conflict between the Greeks and Sungas. Plus, that map is not even used in the Indo-Greek article. The map is clearly disputed and embellished. In addition, the map is about conflict, not religion or religious conflict. Someone please help. ( 2600:1001:B027:FF78:F1AA:964F:8E14:3D7 ( talk) 15:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC))
I am looking for some secrets of the world's end or the end of humanity which is r APT97 ( talk) 17:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Two three weeks ago I went to the bhramkumari ashram near our town there I found that it is a ashram preparing people for the end & life after it, &there theories fits in many theories by all aspects. So I am researching on the knowledge our ancient peoples would have about it &found your name in many edits of arrivals so thought that you might help to find the right things in right time.
Will wait for your response. Thanking u for help. APT97 ( talk) 18:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Haha! I hadn't noticed you were editing too! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your input and information on Buddhist expansion map image. After careful reading I think you're right, I'll corrected the map right away. Cheers... Gunkarta talk 10:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Ha ha, read this: Instead, the author of books such as Indra’s Net: Defending Hinduism’s Philosophical Unity and the recently published Battle for Sanskrit used an unhelpful analogy: Indian social scientists are like dogs that are trained to stay within a perimeter with a tracking collar and electric shocks. [6]. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Why You reverted this https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kapalika&oldid=prev&diff=703353298 edits in Kapalika. Is better:
-- Indu ( talk) 02:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I know you; you're working yourself into a rage. No need to do so. Google gives plenty of links on "Hermenutics of suspicion"; let's work on this together. It looks interesting. Best regards, as always (and sorry for the little pangs), Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Your this edit on my talk page was just a harassment. You were blaming me for ownership of article and personal attack on you even though I never act like ownership on any article and not done any personal attack on you. You are kind of immature editor and you need to know some basic Wikipedia policies. You are maybe in your teenage years, but still it don't give you license to do immature editing. You have done same kind of disruptive edit on my talk page back in June without any reason. If you continue to post such messages on my talk page then I will report you to WP:ANI. Just because you are a teenage kid I am not reporting you, but I will not tolerate it if you do it again. Thank you. -- Human3015 TALK 20:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
So, Rajiv Malhotra is a "ridiculous source"? The author quotes a tweet from Rajiv Malhotra:
References
See also RM's Twitter-account. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
References
@ Kautilya3: Western indologists are not academic. Do you know they still rely on partial translations made in the 1800's and early 1900's? Very few indologists have the ability to translate. VictoriaGrayson Talk 20:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
White is just the editor. Each chapter is written by someone different. VictoriaGrayson Talk 20:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to share your views here Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Planning_a_few_initiatives -- Tito Dutta ( talk) 00:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's not remove new sourced material. Let's correct it instead. I've started a discussion on the talk page. Skyerise ( talk) 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agnicayana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andhra. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I hope you like coffe. At my part of the world, it's time for breakfast, so have a virtual cup of coffee with me. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC) |
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Indo-Aryan migration theory. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents
consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
You know better than to edit war; Where is the source for your claims?
Kautilya3 (
talk) 20:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
You may be interested in this:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hunting_in_pairs_by_Two_Editors. I need your support to expose their collaboration.
Adiagr (
talk) 05:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for creating TBfS page, I was trying for quite some time for the approval. ( /info/en/?search=Draft:The_Battle_for_Sanskrit) HemaChandra88 ( talk) 14:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Just an FYI for future reference, I have at least 200 people watchlisting my talk page ... which can be handy if I'm not around... ;-) Montanabw (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Victoria, I don't favour one view or the other in the latest edits of this article, but just thought you might not be aware that your reversion of a reversion is not normal Wikipedia practice under their WP:BRD guidance. If an edit is reverted, the next step is to discuss on the talk page or we just end up with an WP:EDITWAR. Cheers. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see my comment on the talk page of Rajiv Malhotra to understand rationale for changes. If you disagree with my view that many of the claims are subjective and fail to meet the neutrality requirement of a biographical article, please continue this dialogue with me here or on the talk page.
Manitobamoon ( talk) 01:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Victoria, I would like to highlight that your latest (01:39, 30 April 2016 VictoriaGrayson) edit on the Rajiv Malhotra page is in danger of violating the three-revert rule of our community. Best practices dictate that disagreements such as this should be settled through open dialogue on the talk page to reach mutual agreement rather than just undoing previous edits. This is especially important when we are dealing with the controversial information contained in BLP pages, which could also be construed as vandalism. WP:BLP WP:3RR
Manitobamoon ( talk) 02:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
the former article was full of sources and information, but the page has now been converted into a stub. the old article had succesfffully presented most of the perspectives buddhism has about metaphysics. now the article has been converted on "creator in buddhism" ,which is a simplistic title that leaves many of the complex ideas of the former article aside. the objective of the old wikipedia entry was to talk about buddhist perspectives about the whole spiritual context. the entries in wikipedia regarding "god" are present in all religions ,like hinduism. Notice im certainly not talking that buddhism has a personal god (it has not), but that buddhism believes that there are apects in the laws of the universe that deserve to be worshiped spiritually, hence there is some convergence between buddhism and other religions. the old wiki entry was better because it discussed lenghtly about what buddhism rejects regarding the impersonal idea of the divine, and what buddhism endorses. presenting solid sources for that purpose, the present article has now become a stub, being just restricted to the idea of the personal creator. however, the whole impersonal aspects , such as the trikaya and the dharmadhatu, are sadly no longer talked about in the article. very poor editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.79.253.92 ( talk) 16:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Dearest Victoria, thank you for trying to improve the lead on the Buddhism article, however, I think you have removed a lot of valuable information from it, especially in the first and last paragraphs (regarding the Buddha's background and practices of Buddhism respectively). I would kindly suggest that you revert these edits. Best wishes, Stephen Karakashev ( talk) 18:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the edit needed sources. It was kind of out of context and a bit confusing. Also, as a BLP it must be properly footnoted. ;-) Montanabw (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
To avoid further reverts, I'm posting why I still don't believe that's important enough to be the second sentence of the article on the talk page for Buddhism.-- Ollyoxenfree ( talk) 02:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Vic, please; here you go again. I don't feel like investing a lot of time in it this time. Please calm down. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a really disappointing response, Vic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Victoria, I was quite fascinated by your edits related to Buddhism. Can you please find and add some sources for the above website which is now being considered for deletion? Let me tell you that this website offers translations of Buddhist Scriptures in various languages and it deserves a Wikipedia page. Please help. With regards, Terabar ( talk) 14:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You should know better than it include rumors about a person's sexual orientation and HIV status from a primary source EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 21:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Social justice warrior, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian conservatives. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Where on the talk page is your explanation of why you added a tag alleging strong pro-Stein bias in the article? I searched on the word "bias" on the talk page and found nothing regarding bias in that direction in the current article. 71.13.175.226 ( talk) 18:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, VictoriaGrayson. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jill Stein.The discussion is about the topic Jill Stein. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.175.226 ( talk) 16:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I am sorry to report that I have felt it necessary to include your name in a report related to Snooganssnoogans on the Edit Wars noticeboard with regard to the Jill Stein page. Nevertheless, I do hope for a peaceful resolution; but insofar as it was on your suggestion that s/he called for a full page-protect, it seems to me that the two of you are working together, based also on the talk page. Will edit with a direct link. SashiRolls ( talk) 12:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You reently changed Early Buddhist schools to Mahāsāṃghika in the Template:Buddhist traditions timeline. As there were multiple concurrent early Buddhist schools, which are equally covered by the earlier link, I therefore reverted your edit. prat ( talk) 07:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You prove again that you've got a keen mind, being able to make such changes. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the RfA hasn't been transcluded yet, so !votes and comments cannot yet be added. I've reverted your vote, but you're welcome to re-add it if/when the RfA is transcluded. ~ Rob13 Talk 05:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Victoria. Please read WP:Advice for RfA voters. Also, considering your fairly recent membership in Wikipedia, your work appears to be already attracting some comment. Perhaps management and maintenance areas could wait a while until you have a little more experience. Happy editing!-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there is a reason why you deleted my edits to the Creator in Buddhism article? They are sourced directly from the Nikayas. (Javierfv1212 - Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shaktism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tantric. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vajrayana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tantric. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, VictoriaGrayson. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This article just moved into mainspace; needs infoboxes and such, maybe take a look and see if you think the topic is OK and not fringe: Jay L. Garfield. Montanabw (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
This article just moved into mainspace; needs infoboxes and such, maybe take a look and see if you think the topic is OK and not fringe: Jay L. Garfield. Montanabw (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Your argument for reverting me ("See WP:ALLEGED. There is no criminal trial here.
") is bogus, that guidance does not require a criminal trial for word alleged to be appropriate - go read it. There is common dictionary word "alleged", hello. And just how experienced editor are you anyway, adding as though true fact in WP's voice, especially in a BLP??
IHTS (
talk) 05:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey IHTS, you are crossing a line with an attack like that. Focus on content in the article, not attacking other contributors. Montanabw (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you explain what material in my recent edit of this article is objectionable so I can source it better, edit it, remove it etc? I honestly want to make this article better but you are being very unhelpful with your complete refusal to accept any material. Javierfv1212 ( talk) 15:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I mean you removed a quote by Peter Harvey who is a major source in the field of Buddhist studies. If that is not acceptable I am not sure what is. Your reason for removing all of the material was "Original research / Essay / Primary sources / Off topic" - Can you point out exactly which sections and which sources? Because this obviously does not apply to everything you reverted. I do not want to get into a back and forth here. Javierfv1212 ( talk) 15:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have also reverted your addition to Gospel, just as Ulgarg did. A change to the lede of a major article, when reverted, should then be followed by some discussion and justification why the change is necessary. Ledes are often the result of much long-term wrangling and it is surprising that anyone would think they've had a new idea never thought of before. To revert Ulgarg's revert without discussion is disharmonious, by Wikipedia standards, yes?
In my edit summary I stated I thought that at the least your insertion was out-of-place. That it was a minor point, and undoubtedly covered elsewhere (perhaps Development of the New Testament canon), was not stated. Perhaps those are two points for your discussion.
Anyhoo, an edit to the lede or other important section, when challenged (as by a revert), burdens the initial editor with justifying 'why', again according to Wikipedia custom. Shenme ( talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serfdom in Tibet controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I have softblocked the account. Thanks. El_C 17:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed a lesser form of protection, yes. Semi-protection prevents all Ips and non-autoconformed editors from editing the page. Pending changes needs the review. Lectonar ( talk) 21:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Per RationalWiki, You may wish to create a new Jesus (archangel) article per RationalWiki (RW) - Category:Jesus. - 74.138.110.32 ( talk) 22:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Your spurious edit has been reverted for a second time. If you believe this is in error please state your case clearly for discussion at Early Buddhist schools (plural). prat ( talk) 12:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Would you care to take a look at the recent edits at Prasaṅgika? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Vic, do I understand correctly that in the Shentong-view emptiness is not (only) about the absence of an inherent self, but (also) about 'empty awareness', luminous mind, centreless awareness, I-less awareness, et cetera? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Center of the Sunlit Sky, p.446 (emphasis mine):
As for the question of whether there is a Shentong-Madhyamaka, both the Eighth Karmapa and Pawo Rinpoche give a very clear answer: “No!” They not only refute any realistic interpretation of what the word shentong might refer to, such as the notion of a permanent, intrinsically existing Buddha nature;1037 they simply consider this term a misnomer altogether. At the same time, the two systems of N›g›rjuna—the lineage of profound view—and Asaºga—the lineage of vast activity (to which the term “Shentong” usually refers) are clearly distinguished. When questioned, The Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche confirmed that it is indeed better to make a distinction in terms of the lineages of profound view and vast conduct than between some lineages of “Rangtong” and “Shentong,” since the former two are the clear lineages of transmission that can be traced back to India. Pawo Rinpoche explicitly explains that the final intention of these two systems is identical, while the Eighth Karmapa in his Chariot of the Tagbo Siddhas does so implicitly. 1038 Moreover, Pawo Rinpoche emphasizes that what Tibetans call “Mind Only” or “Mere Mentalism” is not the lineage of vast activity. 1039
The Shentong-article is not finished yet... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
My recent edits to Eurycleia and Anointing of Jesus have been reverted by User:Katolophyromai. Would you please check the validity of my edits? Thanks, -- Wkboonec ( talk) 23:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Another edit reverted: Itinerarium Burdigalense. -- Wkboonec ( talk) 23:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Reference you reversion, I've asked for
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! A.j.roberts ( talk) 07:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Caste system in India". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 December 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 08:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Caste system in India, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 16:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hello, VictoriaGrayson. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi - I think you will be interested in this lecture:
Bon and Buddhism, Two Faces of the Same Coin? By Professor Per Kværne.
Best Regards.
Chris Fynn (
talk) 06:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I recently opened a requested move on renaming Kshitigarbha to Kṣitigarbha over at the talk page and seeing that you participated in the previous discussion I was wondering if you could share your thoughts. Thanks! -- DTM9025 ( talk) 05:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 22:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, VictoriaGrayson. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello VictoriaGrayson! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, VictoriaGrayson. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. We would like to introduce a newsletter to Wikiproject Hinduism. A newsletter is always help to inform recent changes in the project to project members and help for effective coordination. Now we have launched a new newsletter for the Wikiproject. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Also do not forget to contribute to the newsletter. Thank you!
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi Victoria. Thank you very much for this User talk:Joshua Jonathan#2 Edit Requests on HINDUISM page this source! I'm really delighted to see support for historical facts, instead of the ongoing debates based on modern mythology. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
You can add whatever you see in the reference or even summarize. But remember that the page is really very long right now, compare it with Christianity or Islam, you will know. Thank you for your edits. Bladesmulti ( talk) 05:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I really appreciate your use of sources and quotes; they invite further inquiry, instead of useless "discussions" between fixed points of view. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, your recent anti-Bush edit to the 2012 Benghazi article lede [1] was undone by another editor here [2] with an explanation: "(I don't see Bush referenced in the source provided for this. Also, it's not clear why this belongs in the lede.)" I agree. I kindly request that you limit yourself to constructive and legitimate edits, particularly to the lede. We're working to keep the article complete and balanced and up to date. Thanks much! -- Cirrus Editor ( talk) 02:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
"Continuity of the personality" or "continuity of mind or awareness"?!? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your note on my talk page. I think I checked to late. I am very infrequently here … Kt66 ( talk) 00:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Greetings! I hope you don't mind that I reverted your removal of sources at Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, I was actually thinking if we could discuss about that first at the Talk Page? =P I agree that Tony Page isn't a Buddhist scholar, he is merely made some English translations of the scriptures. When it comes to translations even, I don't think one should be a Buddhist scholar to qualify. Similarly we are using Philip Kapleau's Three pillars of Zen as a source for Zen Buddhism even he was a mere practicant without any academic qualifications in the subject. Cheers! :) Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 18:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Copied to Talk:Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra#Tony Page's translation
Good morning, Vic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I've started to try and consolidate the References a little. I think wherever possible best to just use the {{sfn}} template for references and point to the "Main sources". Best to avoid named references on such a changing article as if the first named reference in a series gets deleted then the rest in the series get broken. Thanks. Chris Fynn ( talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden controversy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Fynn ( talk) 19:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atmananda Krishna Menon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you review my recent edits to Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. Thanks. Chris Fynn ( talk) 22:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right. The late Dr. Usula Bernis is not an independent source. She was a long time student and a biographer of the previous Tomo Geshe who propagated the practice of Shugden and was a Shugden practitioner herself. I understand she was also an associate of Thomas Canada, who appears to be the most virulent of contributors to pro-Shugden / anti-Dalai Lama sites and Facebook pages. Some of his comments simply seethe with pure hatred. If he is an example of what may happen to a person who has worshipped Shugden for years, it is pretty nasty. Chris Fynn ( talk) 21:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Have you noticed that 37 seems to be quite a popular number? Prasangika37, Essence37, Audrey37 ... Chris Fynn ( talk) 06:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
And further, you may want to consider the possibility of a magic unicorn? (grin) Montanabw (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You're close at my tail! Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
This is what I was afraid with Bhutanic's edits. (S)he seldom added any sources, but I wanted to assume good faith since (s)he obviously made a lot of effort with respect to that article. I totally agree with your revert though. And of course, Bhutanic has the chance to restore any paragraph as long as (s)he can provide a decent source supporting the edit! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 22:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Kadampa Tradition Survivors 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/New Kadampa Tradition Survivors until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
If you have any time left over from the never ending battle with NKT pods and their NPOV edits, would you kindly look at Shambhala Training. IMO that article relies far too heavily on primary sources. The only secondary or tertiary sources cited are where the article explains some Tibetan terms and concepts. There are no objective secondary sources used in relation to Shambhala Training itself. Consequently the article reads like a subjective promotional piece - not an encyclopaedic article. I've left a note about this on the talk page of the article as well. Chris Fynn ( talk) 16:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
As requested, I have closed the merge discussion with consensus to merge. An administrator is needed to merge the histories. I have not attempted to actually merge the articles, since this is not an area with which I am familiar except by reviewing the articles in preparation for closing. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Could you please explain to me on my talk page what the issue is anyway? I can see that there is an issue about whether particular Buddhist sources are primary or secondary. Other than that, I can see that I was asked, essentially out of nowhere, to look at an issue in which I had no previous involvement, and very little knowledge. I also see that another editor says that there is a conduct issue, but I have no idea what the conduct issue is. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Kt66 ( talk) 09:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
According to Dr. Alexander Berzin, Tsongkhapa received his main Kadampa teachings from a Nyingma lama:
"There was a very famous Nyingma lama at the time called Lhodrag Namka-gyeltsen, and this Nyingma lama had, continually, visions of Vajrapani. And he invited Tsongkhapa, and they became mutual teacher and disciple. It’s from this Nyingma lama that Tsongkhapa got his main lam-rim transmissions from the Kadam tradition – two of the main Kadam lineages. There are three Kadampa lineages that had split. He got two of them from this Nyingma lama and one from a Kagyu lama. The Kadampa was divided into three: One was the lam-rim teachings, one was the textual teachings, and one was the oral guideline teachings. So he got the lam-rim and the oral guideline lineages from this Nyingma lama, and the textual tradition from a Kagyu lama. This I find very interesting. One always thinks that he got them from Kadampa lamas; he didn’t. And that Gelugpa was so separate from all these other traditions; it wasn’t. "
So Tsongkhapa's lineage of Kadampa teachings, which Geshe Kelsang the NKT and other "Shugden Buddhists" claim to be heir to, came via a lineage which passed through Nyingma lamas. Today "Shugden Buddhists" criticise HHDL for taking teachngs from Nyingma lamas and mixing them with the "pure" tradition of Tsongkhapa. If Je Tsongkhapa had had that kind of narrow sectarian view there would have been no tradition of Kadampa teachings including Lam Rim passed down in Tsongkhapa's Gelugpa tradition.
Chris Fynn ( talk) 11:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Good morning Vic. I'm trying to refrain as much as possible from responding in this hopeless discussion, since every response provokes another round of miscomprehension; it's leading nowhere. People who don't understand the difference between faith and scholarship, and don't understand proper arguments, can't be convinced. "You can lead the donkey to the well, but you can't force it to drink." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)keep
I'm sorry for losing it on the talk page and getting myself blocked. The final trigger on my side was when you pinged fellow editors. This whole dispute has felt so acrimonious from the start that the ping looked sinister.
The block has had a silver lining. I must admit, I needed some time out. It's been a circuit breaker.
I still have the same problems with content but I hope there is some way we can eventually make headway with collaborating. Moonsell talk 01:56, 22 December 2014
As far as I know you, you don't encourage this ;) Anyway, best wishes! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
You deserve a barnstar Tito☸ Dutta 21:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC) |
I've made a concrete proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Feel like helping with the COI at Aro gTér? That page needs a hard woman like you, got a problem COI editor who is obviously a shill but honestly you are better at calling out problematic pages than I am. Ogress smash! 07:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@ VictoriaGrayson:, things are getting out of hand on the talk page again and I'm outnumbered by apparent meatpuppets. Unrelatedly, I noticed Prasangika37 show up there, is he edit-stalking you? Ogress smash! 17:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aro gTér 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/Aro gTér until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Montanabw (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Lily W ( talk) 02:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
diff: thanks! You made me laugh again, with a broad grin; that's highly appreciated. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm always happy to see people willing to partake in the wikipedia project. However you only have to mark text as belonging to a primary source - there is no need to delete it. Deletion in these cases often denies the opportunity for editors to provide context to what is written there. In this case, there is a huge surfeit of written material that focusses on the Madhyamaka approach to Anatta - so much so that I considered it best to go 'back' to a well recognised scholarly commentary of a commentary of a text.
You and I probably differ regarding our definitions of 'Primary' vs 'Secondary' sources. I, for one, do not consider it necessary (although I agree it is preferred) for a secondary source to be contemporaneous, or written in English. I also recognise the long traditions of scholarship that are found within the Buddhist monastic universities - and I believe that they have been as subject to rigourous peer review as anything which is found in our modern times.
I also believe that a text can be both a primary source (when it is the subject of a discourse, it becomes a primary source) but also a secondary source (it can still be informative with regards to what it is commenting upon) - and indeed, I believe that this is generally accepted, if not widely understood.
Here is a reference to an old part of the RS page. (I've been here since 2004, so things do change). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years – or even centuries. The sacred or original text(s) of the religion will always be primary sources, but any other acceptable source may be a secondary source in some articles. For example, the works of Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a Roman Catholic perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for Thomas Aquinas or Summa Theologica.
I am begging you to tag offending text as PRIMARY where it offends you, but NOT to delete it - unless you have something to replace it that improves upon the quality of source..
If you wish to discuss this further, don't hesitate. ( 20040302 ( talk) 12:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC))
Other for being "recognized" as a tulku - which hundreds of people are - is this person, Karma Thubten Trinlay Gyurme, notable? Chris Fynn ( talk) 09:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that you ignore it. He has been working on it for a long time and will probably continue working on it for a long time. I don't think that he has a clue how DRN works, which is that the process unfolds after a mediator accepts the case. He seems to think that DRN is a way to get content disputes resolved by a third party, rather than a way for a third party to help the editors resolve content disputes. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Using Advaita Vedanta scholars to discuss the meaning and prevalence of Anutpada in Buddhism needs qualifying, Victoria. It is true that it is found used a lot in prajnaparamita literature, but it does not play a major role in the madhyamaka literature. Please use RS that belong to the context. The Anutpada article looks suspiciously like WP:SYN / WP:ORIG. 10:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, great - in which case, why not cite these sources and the televant domain-specific scholars, rather than scholars of a Hindu tradition? 20040302 ( talk) 01:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Here we go again... This guy seems to be on a crusade. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "New Kadampa Tradition page usage of "Cult" in Lede". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 April 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning New Kadampa Tradition page usage of "Cult" in Lede, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 13:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Should "Cult" be used in lead of the page about a Buddhist tradition, the New Kadampa Tradition". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 April 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Should "Cult" be used in lead of the page about a Buddhist tradition, the New Kadampa Tradition, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 14:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
With respect, wouldn't these edits be allowed under WP:PRIMARY? (as they are "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge") The information given wasn't interpreted and therefore wouldn't require a secondary source in this context. Helpsome ( talk) 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I'm beginning to understand more of your dislike of Tsongkhapa, and his fellows. They haven't been too friendly of the "essentialists," haven't they? While the "essentialist" position can't be discarded from Buddhism; it may even have been an integrral part of the earliest Buddhism, while (Prasangika-)Nadhyamaka was a later development, carrying dependent origination and anatman to a truly new understanding. Best regards, 13:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!
Center of the Sunlit Sky p.587. So, explain to me, what's the relevance? You once replied somewhere, if I remember correct, on the question what is the connection between several lifes, that it is karmic consequences (you didn't write exactly that, but this is what I remember). So, please explain, what's the relevance? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Svatantrika is actually a Tibetan polemical category which is only vaguely based on Indian texts. VictoriaGrayson Talk 18:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The ignorance of clinging to "me". Nagarjuna says:
"The clinging to “me” is exhausted, and thus karma and birth too."
VictoriaGrayson Talk 22:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The main point of Madhyamaka and most Mahayana Sutras is Nonarisal. Everything is illusion. Tsongkhapa ignores all this.
Ok - but he is, frankly, wrong. They do not. ( 20040302 ( talk))
Hey Vicky, it'd be better if you bolded your vote for śramaṇa at Talk:Sramana; I had set the vote to shramana but then when you suggested the IAST, I preferred it and the editor reviewing the section noted that there was no need to reopen the discussion, but merely indicate vote preference. Right now, your only bolded vote preference is oppose; if you add/change it to move to śramaṇa things might go faster? Ogress smash! 21:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No question that the Human Rights in Tibet article reads like something written on behalf of the Chinese government. It's junk. But, it is best to quietly rework it in a step by step fashion, section by section, quietly, with very solid sources and keeping as much of the old stuff as possible, though sometimes reworked. (usually with a structure that meets NPOV by stating "source X says foo but source Y says oof!." ). I love BRD. You will never get consensus with a POV-pusher, all you can do is write BETTER and more balanced text, then go to 3O or wherever and get some people to agree with you. I used to have a boss at a job who said, "don't come to me with a problem unless you also have a solution." Hope this helps! Montanabw (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Given your editing interests, you might want to keep an eye on the Dalai Lama article. A guy giving me serious cold-hot hostility issues is editing the crap out of it, and I'm dubious that the article is not going to need serious defragmenting and degaussing as he's openly stated on Talk that he is there on DL because he thinks it's been edited by people not "supportive" of the Dalai Lamas and that people claiming to be tulkus who aren't really reincarnates will be rightfully dispossessed of their roles by the Tibetan people (yeah, seriously, he said that).
Personally I'm fine letting him info-dump the page with cites and then picking apart problematic areas, as he correctly notes that we have wiki pages on each of the Dalai Lamas but only mention like two of them on the Dalai Lama page itself. However, he is pretty hostile to me; for example, claiming my use of the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism is because I studied Korean Seon about the same time as one of its editors, Robert Buswell Jr., which is... I mean, I think you see where this is going.. Ogress smash! 00:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, you're right. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@ VictoriaGrayson: @ Cwobeel: Your comments, reverting my edited revision 667641821, and those of Cwobeel, belong on a Talk Page. Discussions such as yours and Cwobeel's should not generally be conducted in Undo or Revert edit summaries, which are not intended for that purpose. Also, insofar as you have standing with "pending changes reviewer rights", you should really try to show less bias if you choose to label a well-established news outlet source as not "neutral" enough. What do you consider a "more neutral" major news media source? -- Please provide me with an example or two of those that you deem more suitably "neutral". Also, I would advise that you should generally confine any discussions, such as statements of your personal opinions regarding news source's relative neutrality (of, say, The Washington Post vs. the Wall Street Journal) only to Talk Pages, and attempt to limit yourself, in any editing, to only constructive and legitimate edits. I'm just curious --- would you consider, say, the Washington Post more neutral, in your opinion, than the Wall Street Journal? Fox News Politics less neutral than, say, Media Matters? Professor JR ( talk) 10:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The Half Barnstar | ||
One half for you, the other half for Ms Sarah Welch, for your joint work on Yoga and the Yoga Sutras. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC) |
And also a cup of tea, for edit-summaries like "changed my mind", asking questions at talkpages, and referring to noteworthy videos. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC) |
The whole religious views section of that article is an unsourced quagmire from beginning to end, I just added multiple tags. I don't favor blanking stuff that is on the right track just because it's unsourced, but clearly there is some serious work that needs to happen there. Montanabw (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have created a discussion on the recent issues regarding WP:Caste system In India in ANI and specifically reported suspicious behavior of concerted behavior of a group of editors including you. Have a look. Regards AB Talk 08:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Transformed: that's the kind of nuance were I'm simply lacking in fluency. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the 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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 June 2015
Hi Vic. Something completely different from all the discussions: do you know this book The Hidden Lives of Brahman? I just acquired it, and it looks very promising. It uses both textal analysis and Anthropological fieldwork to describe Shankara's Vedanta as a practice to alter one's view and experience of reality. I thought you might like it too, given your interest in the topic and your preference for academic publications. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: don't forget to add a reference; as it is now, it might be reverted. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I know you are the one person on Wikipedia who will simply nod when I say with great irritation, "Why is Tsongkhapa such rubbish!?" and not try to convince me of anything. (At least I hope so.) Okay, that's enough blowing-off steam. Back to the grind.
Oh, also, what pronouns should I be using for you? I hope that's not rude, but I just went with she but then I saw people using he, but then again they use he for me basically constantly... so while I'm here, if you want to register a preference (or lack of one), feel free to do so. (I myself use she, as might be expected from an ogress.) Ogress smash! 04:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
{{subst:arbcom notice| Talk Page Etiquette}} /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Talk_Page_Etiquette This is to confirm that you have been mentioned in an ArbCom discussion Soham321 ( talk) 09:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice to advise that the "Talk Page Etiquette" arbitration case, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined by the committee on account of the fact that it appears to have been withdrawn. Further information is available at the above link. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 14:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
Hello, I'm Human3015. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Buddhism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Human3015 knock knock • 00:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
IDK if you have a second but this guy at Dvārakā keeps adding the Bhagavad Gita onto the page and I've reverted him twice already. He also removed the references tag. Ogress smash! 02:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi VictoriaGrayson,
You recently reverted my edit on the Sam Harris BLP page. I was wondering if you could expand on your reasoning? The page was using a gigantic quote in a BLP which is fairly POV. Further, the section I edited was badly structured. You're stated reasoning was that I was removing good faith material. I believe I added good faith material, and made the article much easier to read. I understand if you took umbrage with a few of my edits but to revert its entirety I believe is going to far.
Feel free to write back to me on my wall or in the section I opened regarding the smaller edit I made earlier on the Sam Harris talk page(or right here!).
YshuDS ( talk) 02:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Brilliant. We seem to agree, even though from different points of view. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting article you linked to, and a pretty stupid textbook-text indeed. It made me wonder what I think about Hinduism, and caste definitely is not the first thing that comes to my mind, nor the second or third. Complexity comes to my mind. If I had to "explain" Hinduism to my daughter, I'd probbaly start with "It's a term for a collection of (intertwined) religions which are practiced in India." And then I'd be specific; I guess like "The main denominations/Gods are Shiva and Vishnu" - my, I don't know. Luckily my daughter is open to nuance, and she's curious; she might say "Daddy, they are doing meditation too, don't they, just like you?" (To which I should reply, "No, I'm doing meditation, just like (some of) them.") Or I would tell her of a friend of mine, a Catholic-born westerner, who became a pandit (or so he says) with the Arya Samaj. Anyway, my association with Hinduism is "colourfull, inclusive, rich, tolerant." Also to mention: there's a large Hindu-community in the Netherlands, over 100,000 people (on a total of 17 million dutch); I used to know quite some Hindus. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
JJ, how would you explain to your child the fact that physicists use both particle and wave metaphors to understand light? Would you say that particle studies and light studies are "two intertwined fields of natural science" that are practiced in modern society (if so, you should familiarize yourself with how these fields, contenders in 1900, have been integrated)? Note that what you call the "denominations" of Shaivism and Vaishnavism are so intertwined that their shrines are frequently built as part of the same building or building complex, and this is not viewed as remarkable (for example, this is not commented upon in our article at Dakshineswar Kali Temple, nor do I recollect that it was found unusual or surprising when built in 1855). It would be interesting to know how far back in time this architectural "intertwining" goes (anybody know references?).
Evidence for deep "intertwining" appears on virtually every level -- scriptures where Shiva and Vishnu (or Vishnu's incarnations) each on occasion extoll the other as a representation of the supreme; philosophies about the nature of the ishta as different paths to the same realization; families where members have different ishtas, without trouble. I think the intertwining is much deeper and far-reaching than what you'd find between Baptists and Methodists, much less Baptists and Catholics. In many circles -- such as families that contain members with different ishtas -- the claim that these are different religions that do not belong to a larger encompassing tradition would have a hard time passing the laugh test, just as the notion that Franciscans and Dominicans are separate denominations would have a hard time passing a laugh test among Catholics.
Of course, just as the human weaknesses of bigotry and chauvanism may sometimes attach themselves to a religious "order", they may sometimes attach to different ishtas, but that does not mean that these are not validly recognized by cooler heads as part of one integrated religion, one deeply but not perfectly integrated tradition. But because of the lack of Indians in their ranks, few Indologists have had an on-the-ground insider familiarity with Hinduism. In that respect, academic Hindu Studies has been handicapped in comparison to studies of virtually any other major religious tradition, where the laugh test correctives have been more readily accessible. -- Presearch ( talk) 22:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Jonathan -- your lack of direct experience of Hinduism, which you candidly and freely and commendably reveal, is just the point: you cannot personally evaluate claims about contemporary Hinduism by comparing them with the common sense provided by your daily experience of Hinduism, since you have none (except perhaps a small bit vicariously through Hindu friends in the Netherlands). That's essentially what I meant by a "laugh test" -- the test provided by comparing with common sense. What has been exceptional about Hinduism Studies, in contrast to religious studies of almost any other major religious tradition, is that extremely few Indologists have had direct access to the "laugh test", i.e., direct access to the common sense provided by actual insider experience of Hinduism. (Rambachan is one of the main exceptions that comes to mind, and even he grew up in a western hemisphere diaspora). I'm not saying that such insider experience is infallible -- far from it, especially with regard to historical questions. But a muting of common sense (the inaccessibility of a "laugh test") makes it possible for other types of absurd misinterpretations to gain and maintain influence, especially if someone has a vested interest (religious or geopolitical) in promoting a particular misinterpretation.
What is so dispiriting at times about Malhotra is the ease with which he has been ready to confidently allege nefarious motives among any individual who disagrees with him, rather than showing a real-time recognition of the mixture of motives and influences at work. Religious and geopolitical influences may well be at work (I haven't read his Breaking India book, but I've read anthropology papers saying it was common knowledge that many anthropologists had been recruited by intelligence agencies). Less nefariously but still mistakenly, many scholars may be simply deluded by Indological "group-think" (perhaps abetted by a hidden geopolitical thumb on the scale), uncorrected by the common sense provided by insider lived experience. And misunderstanding of the present provides a distorted lense that can be read back into the past. For the fullest and most accurate acoounts, we need to be able to weave together the truths offered by both perspectives. But perhaps some parties have an interest in polarization. If we admit this possibility, then I would say: Do not blame it all on Malhotra's camp, one doesn't need to be a genius to see that there are interests on both sides who might prefer polarization.-- Presearch ( talk) 19:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Vic. Shall I install MiszaBot at your talkpage, for automatic archivation? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
You know me well. VictoriaGrayson Talk 06:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep watching the page; I expect a response by 81~14. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
€60... Sigh; above my budget. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.' Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) ' 18:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "2002 Gujarat Riots". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 September 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning 2002 Gujarat Riots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 22:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hi Vic; I purchased a copy yesterday at a New Age bookstore in Amsterdam, to my great surprise. Great book! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "2002 Gujarat Riots 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 September 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
VG, do you have access to JSTOR? (since I already have access, I am not asking for myself; if yes, I can point you to an article of possible interest) Thanks -- Presearch ( talk) 00:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Listen, I keep getting in trouble for making page moves or suggesting them. Can you please consider voting on Talk:Ksitigarbha#Requested move 15 September 2015 and Talk:Manjusri#Requested move 15 September 2015? People get annoyed about IAST titles, but when I move pages from incorrect romanisations to WP:COMMONNAME according to our Indic MOS, they also complain I didn't use a "move discussion" (to move pages according to our MOS!) - but then literally no one votes on move discussions. Ogress 19:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Please let me know when you find a university textbook or encyclopedia that says many scholars consider historical-Jesus methodology to be invalid. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 13:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning 2002 Gujarat Riots 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 21:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
You asked for advice from an admin, I am an admin so here is my advice. Please do not use an RfA to engage in a personal dispute [3]. If you wish to discuss User:Moonsells behaviour you can do it on your talk page, their talk page or if you really think it is a problem take it to one of the noticeboards.
It is however not acceptable for you to engage in such complaints in an unrelated forum like someone's RfA. I hope you understand why this is important. Chillum 05:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Please desist from restoring content sourced to Sonnenfeld at Carly Fiorina. There is a discussion regarding his reliability as a source. Per WP:BLP, the burden of proof for establishing the reliability of sources for adding content resides with the editor restoring it. Thanks CFredkin ( talk) 22:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree strongly with CFredkin, who is quite correct -- you should desist, please, from your non-constructive multiple attempts to restore content sourced to Sonnenfeld at Carly Fiorina! While I won't try to dispute your contention that you have "a very good understanding of WP:BLP", you seem to have missed the fact that Wikipedia BLP policy does put the burden of proof for the reliability of a source for adding content upon the editor (you) adding it or wanting to restore it. --- Professor JR ( talk) 10:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CFredkin ( talk) 16:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey Vic: breath in, breath out. Stay cool. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For calling it as it is. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC) |
My user access levels, which do not include administrator, may be found here [4]. NE Ent 02:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Stumbled across this today, may be useful to you: [5] Montanabw (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
You and your sunyata...
Okay, how about this explanation, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nagarjuna:
Does this explanation satisfy you? Bets regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Cpt.a.haddock. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Padmasambhava#The_obscure_sorcerer that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 20:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
What are you doing? I didn't finish editing. can you please wait a second before reverting. Read the explanation. Bodhadeepika ( talk) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I already had the feeling that somehow this wasn't correct... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you were already getting me upset... Isn't this one of the great feutures of Wikipedia: everybody is watching everybody? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Vic, you're somewhat acquainted with the topic of demons & spirits, therefor please your thoughts: Ramana Maharshi, after his "death-experience," at first thought that he was possessed by a spirit. He felt the presense of a "current" or "force," which he took to be his real self. In later life, he became acquainted with Vedantic literature, and recognised his "death-experience" as the "intuition of the enlightened." Devotees came to him for darshan, which he regarded to be his task in life. He was regarded to be Dakshinamurti, an incarnation of Shiva. According to Alan Edwards, the presentation of Ramana Maharshi was an "elite construction." This is in line with Sanskritization. Now, read this quote:
"The person on which the deity is thought to have descended"... Talking about contexts and framing. It may be that Ramana Maharshi should primarily be understood in the context of Tamil folk religion, and that this aspect of "spirit possession," and the shamanistic aspect of the holy man as the intermediair with the gods, is completely neglcted or overlooked in the western understanding of Ramana Maharshi. What do you think? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Please be mindful.
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey Vic. Cool down. Writing in capitals may be a sign that you're losing your temper. You may be totally right, surrounded by an ocean of non-understanding, but in the end you'll be at the losing end when your temper takes charge. Take care, and best regards, as usual. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Happy Diwali!!! | ||
Sky full of fireworks, Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous
Diwali.
|
Happy Diwali!!! | ||
Sky full of fireworks, Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous
Diwali.
|
You are refusing to have a discussion. When you remove a source that's been on the articles static state. If someone disputes it. The static state gets prescience during the discussion. BTW, Brookings doesn't qualify for self published. It's not a blog.
Do not revert it again. I will report you for edit warring. -- Everyone Dies In the End ( talk) 21:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2011/01/26/house-section/article/H503-1
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/17/yemen.islam
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-obamas-migrants
http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-upping-aid-to-syrian-rebels-by-123-million/
Nocturnalnow ( talk) 04:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
You know your opposite votes for these two articles seems pretty odd. -- NeilN talk to me 17:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
If you are interested in a quick "info" thing as far as editors - there are some scripts you can add which show you a bunch of info at the top of user and user talk pages. For example - when I click on your user page or talk page - at the very top I see this:
User Liz recently showed me a new one, and it's likely either one of us would help you get that installed if you're interested. — Ched : ? 21:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi VictoriaGrayson. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! NeilN talk to me 06:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
It's getting crowded at your userpage... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
please be so kind to provide a reliable source, in addition to removing info. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Advaita Vedanta may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 15:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy Holidays and a Prosperous 2016!!! | |
Hello VictoriaGrayson, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this holiday season. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user happy holidays and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for New Year 2016. |
Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!
|
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄 | |
Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw (talk) |
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (
talk) 21:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary
blisters. |
VictoriaGrayson,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 10:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Re your edit in History of India it is not at all clear where the reference to Shrauta sacrifices comes from since they are not mentioned before (the decline) and since the article on the practice doesn't mention sacrifices (though it lists various sacrifices in the See Also section). Would it be possible for you to clarify this by including something that indicates the role played by these rituals before the decline and/or elaborating in the related article? Thanks! -- regentspark ( comment) 23:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Nalanda. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents
consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
There's an ongoing discussion in the talk page. Discuss and gain consensus first. Reading up on
WP:BRD might also prove useful.
Cpt.a.haddock (
talk) (please ping when replying) 12:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I spent half an hour fixing the multiple reference errors on Dorje Shugden controversy. If you'd like to restore the lengthy quotations in the ref section (which are completely unnecessary as the sources are accessible), please go ahead. But by simply reverting my edits, you're reintroducing all the referencing errors I fixed (scroll down the page to see the big red warnings). That's utter disrespect of other people's work. - Zanhe ( talk) 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
A user has been edit warring with me just for spite on the History of Buddhism. The individual was not even involved in this article, but decided to revert all my edits. this map has nothing to do with this article. The map is regarding the conflict between the Greeks and Sungas. Plus, that map is not even used in the Indo-Greek article. The map is clearly disputed and embellished. In addition, the map is about conflict, not religion or religious conflict. Someone please help. ( 2600:1001:B027:FF78:F1AA:964F:8E14:3D7 ( talk) 15:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC))
I am looking for some secrets of the world's end or the end of humanity which is r APT97 ( talk) 17:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Two three weeks ago I went to the bhramkumari ashram near our town there I found that it is a ashram preparing people for the end & life after it, &there theories fits in many theories by all aspects. So I am researching on the knowledge our ancient peoples would have about it &found your name in many edits of arrivals so thought that you might help to find the right things in right time.
Will wait for your response. Thanking u for help. APT97 ( talk) 18:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Haha! I hadn't noticed you were editing too! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your input and information on Buddhist expansion map image. After careful reading I think you're right, I'll corrected the map right away. Cheers... Gunkarta talk 10:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Ha ha, read this: Instead, the author of books such as Indra’s Net: Defending Hinduism’s Philosophical Unity and the recently published Battle for Sanskrit used an unhelpful analogy: Indian social scientists are like dogs that are trained to stay within a perimeter with a tracking collar and electric shocks. [6]. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Why You reverted this https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kapalika&oldid=prev&diff=703353298 edits in Kapalika. Is better:
-- Indu ( talk) 02:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I know you; you're working yourself into a rage. No need to do so. Google gives plenty of links on "Hermenutics of suspicion"; let's work on this together. It looks interesting. Best regards, as always (and sorry for the little pangs), Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Your this edit on my talk page was just a harassment. You were blaming me for ownership of article and personal attack on you even though I never act like ownership on any article and not done any personal attack on you. You are kind of immature editor and you need to know some basic Wikipedia policies. You are maybe in your teenage years, but still it don't give you license to do immature editing. You have done same kind of disruptive edit on my talk page back in June without any reason. If you continue to post such messages on my talk page then I will report you to WP:ANI. Just because you are a teenage kid I am not reporting you, but I will not tolerate it if you do it again. Thank you. -- Human3015 TALK 20:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
So, Rajiv Malhotra is a "ridiculous source"? The author quotes a tweet from Rajiv Malhotra:
References
See also RM's Twitter-account. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
References
@ Kautilya3: Western indologists are not academic. Do you know they still rely on partial translations made in the 1800's and early 1900's? Very few indologists have the ability to translate. VictoriaGrayson Talk 20:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
White is just the editor. Each chapter is written by someone different. VictoriaGrayson Talk 20:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to share your views here Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Planning_a_few_initiatives -- Tito Dutta ( talk) 00:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's not remove new sourced material. Let's correct it instead. I've started a discussion on the talk page. Skyerise ( talk) 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agnicayana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andhra. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I hope you like coffe. At my part of the world, it's time for breakfast, so have a virtual cup of coffee with me. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC) |
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Indo-Aryan migration theory. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents
consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
You know better than to edit war; Where is the source for your claims?
Kautilya3 (
talk) 20:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
You may be interested in this:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hunting_in_pairs_by_Two_Editors. I need your support to expose their collaboration.
Adiagr (
talk) 05:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for creating TBfS page, I was trying for quite some time for the approval. ( /info/en/?search=Draft:The_Battle_for_Sanskrit) HemaChandra88 ( talk) 14:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Just an FYI for future reference, I have at least 200 people watchlisting my talk page ... which can be handy if I'm not around... ;-) Montanabw (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Victoria, I don't favour one view or the other in the latest edits of this article, but just thought you might not be aware that your reversion of a reversion is not normal Wikipedia practice under their WP:BRD guidance. If an edit is reverted, the next step is to discuss on the talk page or we just end up with an WP:EDITWAR. Cheers. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see my comment on the talk page of Rajiv Malhotra to understand rationale for changes. If you disagree with my view that many of the claims are subjective and fail to meet the neutrality requirement of a biographical article, please continue this dialogue with me here or on the talk page.
Manitobamoon ( talk) 01:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Victoria, I would like to highlight that your latest (01:39, 30 April 2016 VictoriaGrayson) edit on the Rajiv Malhotra page is in danger of violating the three-revert rule of our community. Best practices dictate that disagreements such as this should be settled through open dialogue on the talk page to reach mutual agreement rather than just undoing previous edits. This is especially important when we are dealing with the controversial information contained in BLP pages, which could also be construed as vandalism. WP:BLP WP:3RR
Manitobamoon ( talk) 02:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
the former article was full of sources and information, but the page has now been converted into a stub. the old article had succesfffully presented most of the perspectives buddhism has about metaphysics. now the article has been converted on "creator in buddhism" ,which is a simplistic title that leaves many of the complex ideas of the former article aside. the objective of the old wikipedia entry was to talk about buddhist perspectives about the whole spiritual context. the entries in wikipedia regarding "god" are present in all religions ,like hinduism. Notice im certainly not talking that buddhism has a personal god (it has not), but that buddhism believes that there are apects in the laws of the universe that deserve to be worshiped spiritually, hence there is some convergence between buddhism and other religions. the old wiki entry was better because it discussed lenghtly about what buddhism rejects regarding the impersonal idea of the divine, and what buddhism endorses. presenting solid sources for that purpose, the present article has now become a stub, being just restricted to the idea of the personal creator. however, the whole impersonal aspects , such as the trikaya and the dharmadhatu, are sadly no longer talked about in the article. very poor editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.79.253.92 ( talk) 16:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Dearest Victoria, thank you for trying to improve the lead on the Buddhism article, however, I think you have removed a lot of valuable information from it, especially in the first and last paragraphs (regarding the Buddha's background and practices of Buddhism respectively). I would kindly suggest that you revert these edits. Best wishes, Stephen Karakashev ( talk) 18:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the edit needed sources. It was kind of out of context and a bit confusing. Also, as a BLP it must be properly footnoted. ;-) Montanabw (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
To avoid further reverts, I'm posting why I still don't believe that's important enough to be the second sentence of the article on the talk page for Buddhism.-- Ollyoxenfree ( talk) 02:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Vic, please; here you go again. I don't feel like investing a lot of time in it this time. Please calm down. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
That's a really disappointing response, Vic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello Victoria, I was quite fascinated by your edits related to Buddhism. Can you please find and add some sources for the above website which is now being considered for deletion? Let me tell you that this website offers translations of Buddhist Scriptures in various languages and it deserves a Wikipedia page. Please help. With regards, Terabar ( talk) 14:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You should know better than it include rumors about a person's sexual orientation and HIV status from a primary source EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 21:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Social justice warrior, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian conservatives. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Where on the talk page is your explanation of why you added a tag alleging strong pro-Stein bias in the article? I searched on the word "bias" on the talk page and found nothing regarding bias in that direction in the current article. 71.13.175.226 ( talk) 18:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, VictoriaGrayson. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jill Stein.The discussion is about the topic Jill Stein. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.175.226 ( talk) 16:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I am sorry to report that I have felt it necessary to include your name in a report related to Snooganssnoogans on the Edit Wars noticeboard with regard to the Jill Stein page. Nevertheless, I do hope for a peaceful resolution; but insofar as it was on your suggestion that s/he called for a full page-protect, it seems to me that the two of you are working together, based also on the talk page. Will edit with a direct link. SashiRolls ( talk) 12:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You reently changed Early Buddhist schools to Mahāsāṃghika in the Template:Buddhist traditions timeline. As there were multiple concurrent early Buddhist schools, which are equally covered by the earlier link, I therefore reverted your edit. prat ( talk) 07:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You prove again that you've got a keen mind, being able to make such changes. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the RfA hasn't been transcluded yet, so !votes and comments cannot yet be added. I've reverted your vote, but you're welcome to re-add it if/when the RfA is transcluded. ~ Rob13 Talk 05:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Victoria. Please read WP:Advice for RfA voters. Also, considering your fairly recent membership in Wikipedia, your work appears to be already attracting some comment. Perhaps management and maintenance areas could wait a while until you have a little more experience. Happy editing!-- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there is a reason why you deleted my edits to the Creator in Buddhism article? They are sourced directly from the Nikayas. (Javierfv1212 - Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shaktism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tantric. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vajrayana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tantric. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, VictoriaGrayson. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This article just moved into mainspace; needs infoboxes and such, maybe take a look and see if you think the topic is OK and not fringe: Jay L. Garfield. Montanabw (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 19:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
This article just moved into mainspace; needs infoboxes and such, maybe take a look and see if you think the topic is OK and not fringe: Jay L. Garfield. Montanabw (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Your argument for reverting me ("See WP:ALLEGED. There is no criminal trial here.
") is bogus, that guidance does not require a criminal trial for word alleged to be appropriate - go read it. There is common dictionary word "alleged", hello. And just how experienced editor are you anyway, adding as though true fact in WP's voice, especially in a BLP??
IHTS (
talk) 05:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey IHTS, you are crossing a line with an attack like that. Focus on content in the article, not attacking other contributors. Montanabw (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you explain what material in my recent edit of this article is objectionable so I can source it better, edit it, remove it etc? I honestly want to make this article better but you are being very unhelpful with your complete refusal to accept any material. Javierfv1212 ( talk) 15:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I mean you removed a quote by Peter Harvey who is a major source in the field of Buddhist studies. If that is not acceptable I am not sure what is. Your reason for removing all of the material was "Original research / Essay / Primary sources / Off topic" - Can you point out exactly which sections and which sources? Because this obviously does not apply to everything you reverted. I do not want to get into a back and forth here. Javierfv1212 ( talk) 15:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have also reverted your addition to Gospel, just as Ulgarg did. A change to the lede of a major article, when reverted, should then be followed by some discussion and justification why the change is necessary. Ledes are often the result of much long-term wrangling and it is surprising that anyone would think they've had a new idea never thought of before. To revert Ulgarg's revert without discussion is disharmonious, by Wikipedia standards, yes?
In my edit summary I stated I thought that at the least your insertion was out-of-place. That it was a minor point, and undoubtedly covered elsewhere (perhaps Development of the New Testament canon), was not stated. Perhaps those are two points for your discussion.
Anyhoo, an edit to the lede or other important section, when challenged (as by a revert), burdens the initial editor with justifying 'why', again according to Wikipedia custom. Shenme ( talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serfdom in Tibet controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I have softblocked the account. Thanks. El_C 17:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed a lesser form of protection, yes. Semi-protection prevents all Ips and non-autoconformed editors from editing the page. Pending changes needs the review. Lectonar ( talk) 21:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Per RationalWiki, You may wish to create a new Jesus (archangel) article per RationalWiki (RW) - Category:Jesus. - 74.138.110.32 ( talk) 22:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Your spurious edit has been reverted for a second time. If you believe this is in error please state your case clearly for discussion at Early Buddhist schools (plural). prat ( talk) 12:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Would you care to take a look at the recent edits at Prasaṅgika? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Vic, do I understand correctly that in the Shentong-view emptiness is not (only) about the absence of an inherent self, but (also) about 'empty awareness', luminous mind, centreless awareness, I-less awareness, et cetera? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Center of the Sunlit Sky, p.446 (emphasis mine):
As for the question of whether there is a Shentong-Madhyamaka, both the Eighth Karmapa and Pawo Rinpoche give a very clear answer: “No!” They not only refute any realistic interpretation of what the word shentong might refer to, such as the notion of a permanent, intrinsically existing Buddha nature;1037 they simply consider this term a misnomer altogether. At the same time, the two systems of N›g›rjuna—the lineage of profound view—and Asaºga—the lineage of vast activity (to which the term “Shentong” usually refers) are clearly distinguished. When questioned, The Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche confirmed that it is indeed better to make a distinction in terms of the lineages of profound view and vast conduct than between some lineages of “Rangtong” and “Shentong,” since the former two are the clear lineages of transmission that can be traced back to India. Pawo Rinpoche explicitly explains that the final intention of these two systems is identical, while the Eighth Karmapa in his Chariot of the Tagbo Siddhas does so implicitly. 1038 Moreover, Pawo Rinpoche emphasizes that what Tibetans call “Mind Only” or “Mere Mentalism” is not the lineage of vast activity. 1039
The Shentong-article is not finished yet... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
My recent edits to Eurycleia and Anointing of Jesus have been reverted by User:Katolophyromai. Would you please check the validity of my edits? Thanks, -- Wkboonec ( talk) 23:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Another edit reverted: Itinerarium Burdigalense. -- Wkboonec ( talk) 23:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Reference you reversion, I've asked for
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! A.j.roberts ( talk) 07:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Caste system in India". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 December 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 08:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Caste system in India, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 16:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hello, VictoriaGrayson. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 17:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi - I think you will be interested in this lecture:
Bon and Buddhism, Two Faces of the Same Coin? By Professor Per Kværne.
Best Regards.
Chris Fynn (
talk) 06:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I recently opened a requested move on renaming Kshitigarbha to Kṣitigarbha over at the talk page and seeing that you participated in the previous discussion I was wondering if you could share your thoughts. Thanks! -- DTM9025 ( talk) 05:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 22:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, VictoriaGrayson. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello VictoriaGrayson! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 17:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, VictoriaGrayson. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. We would like to introduce a newsletter to Wikiproject Hinduism. A newsletter is always help to inform recent changes in the project to project members and help for effective coordination. Now we have launched a new newsletter for the Wikiproject. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Also do not forget to contribute to the newsletter. Thank you!
-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)