User talk:Dharmalion76/Archive 1

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Dharmalion76! Thank you for your contributions. I am JimRenge and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! JimRenge (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed you because of this edit, and because you popped up at other articles I have WP:Watchlisted while you were changing links. Looking at your edit history, you don't seem like a WP:Newbie to me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a question? Dharmalion76 (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just an observation. If you want to disclose one or more of your past accounts, you are certainly free to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I edited as an IP until recently when I created this account. I feel like you are accusing me of something. Dharmalion76 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmalion76, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Dharmalion76! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About Buddhism and Violence

Hi Dharmalion76, I see that you revert the last edits and I feel that I should advice you that you should try to talk with the IP. Try to let a message in the article talk page or in his/her talk page. You can give your opinion so we can reach a consensus. If the IP still doesn't talk, there are other ways to resolve the issue. I tell you this because I have been punished for warring a few weeks ago. Regards. 05:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Rupert Loup (talk)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings


Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season,

and all best wishes for the New Year!

JimRenge (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maya

Hi, thank you very much for all your helpful contributions! Nevertheless, I disagree with this revert. She was born in a kingdom that was located in what is today Nepal; but since Nepal did not exist at the time, I don´t think it would be appropriate to say her nationality was Nepalese. The initial introduction of the nationality, the flag icon and marking of Kapilavastu as Nepal (unsolved dispute, see also Piprahwa) reminds me of the continuing attempts to portray Gautama Buddha as Nepalese etc. I hope you understand my concerns. : ) JimRenge (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking information with a lack of edit summary is always questionable to me and that was my reasoning. I see your argument and I don't disagree. The same person seems to have redone the edit so I think things should be fixed now. Thanks for pointing out your concerns. They are always welcome. :) Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 26 March

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) 00:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goenka

Dear Damilion76

I have attributed the quotes. That is not a breach of copyright. I notice that other parts of the wiki article are directly lifted, copied from Goenka's webpages without attribution. that is both plagiarism and breach of copyright.

I have not committed this crime.

In fact I am shocked at the willingness of the proponents of the Dhamma to use false reasons in order to prevent Goenka's strange claims to achieving "the deathless state" to be aired in public.

He made these claims publicly. You should be ashamed of your attempts to hide them.

You continue to cut and paste whole passages from http://gutenberg.XX/article/whebn0001573721/s.%20n.%20goenka which is not only a violation of WP:COPYVIO but you aren't even referencing what you are plagiarizing. I have removed it once again and given you a final warning. Should you continue in this behavior, you risk being blocked. Dharmalion76 (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But he's

... a main religious figure right? Hawaan12 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham predates Moses and he is Jewish so clearly Moses didn't "found" Judaism. Not every religion has a "founder" which is why your template is bound to run into trouble. Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ayya Khema 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • years her senior named Johannes and they moved to an apartment in the [[Hongkou District]].{{sfn |Khema|1998|p = 35} In 1947, her first child, a daughter named Irene, was born.{{sfn |Khema|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ayya Khema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sidney. 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) 10:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BOLD

Read WP:BOLDVictoriaGraysonTalk 01:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline clearly also states Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted which you engaged in an edit war when it was, and it also states it is important that you take care of the common good and not edit disruptively or recklessly. Deleting an entire article and renaming it without discussion is the definition of reckless and disruptive. Dharmalion76 (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS.VictoriaGraysonTalk 02:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are edit warring to create an new article with no consensus. If you can't explain yourself beyond arrogantly saying "See this guideline" then stay off this talk page. Dharmalion76 (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

@Dharmalion76: - I've just posted the RfC you suggested on redeath:

"Is the word redeath commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in this article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in the lede? "

Do respond here if you want to take part:

RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

prweb.com is a respected website and is used for news source by many news agencies. Why do you say it is not a reliable source? mcolombowala Mcolombowala (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per the guidelines at WP:RS, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A press release is a primary source and unreliable as far as verifiability because anyone can create a press release that says anything. Dharmalion76 (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhante

So does unacceptability of original research cover rules of grammar and facts of philology? In other words if in an WIKI article on English language I state that usage of the verb ARE for singular nouns is in most cases incorrect, would that qualify as original research? I gave reference to a dictionary article which supports the statement, so no original research was conducted, I simply stated a linguistic fact which many are either unfamiliar with or ignore. The edit was reinstated.LXNDR (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary article doesn't say what you claim it says. You are using it to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources which is original research. Dharmalion76 (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of source do you believe it should rely upon and how the relevant philological fact must be put in it? I reckon you cannot expect that, say, a Pali grammar book will specifically reference declension of the word 'bhadanta', if only by chance, since grammar books deal with blanket rules and not specific lexical units. And you didn't address my analogy, does it too fall under the original research clause or not? Please refrain from further undoing my edit until the matter it finally settled. LXNDR (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't own the article so you cannot tell me to refrain from undoing original research. Nowhere in your reference does it say "using the word in 3d person as a honorific title is incorrect" this is your interpretation which makes it original research. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my interpretation, this is a rule pertinent to usage of Vocative case in languages which have it, you may research what this is, because knowledge of English language is insufficient for understanding of its function. The phrase you have taken issue with logically follows from the very function of the Vocative case, one doesn't have to conduct a research to state that or any esteemed Pali scholar to spell it out because it is a self-apparent and trivial fact. Neither you have proven this is original research by systematically ignoring my questions and evading dialogue. I didn't tell you what to do, I asked that you don't. Your obtrusive behavior of voluntary undoing the edit and uncooperativeness don't help the resolution of the dispute. Worse than that, instead of deleting just the phrase you deem original research you undid the entire edit, which actually may indicate a bias. Now if you disagree, you're welcome to open a thread on the article discussion page so other users can have their say as well. LXNDR (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it WP:OR, but you are being blatantly dishonest about your sources. Gombrich's Buddhist Precept & Practice does NOT claim that using the word in 3d person as a honorific title is incorrect. Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Hey there. I noticed that you added a report to the AIV board that was removed as unactionable. Just wanted to note that ANI is the better place for it as AIV seems to primarily deal with pure/mass vandalism accounts. Eik Corell (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...written like an advertisement..." notice?

Hi Dharmalion76 - I am trying to find what is causing the "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement..." notice at Tara Brach's WIKI entry. I tried removing some things, but you reinstated the message. I have read all the WIKI articles about this notice, but am unable to find the difficulty. Would you be willing to assist me? Thank you, Jmerrick2 Jmerrick2 (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists talks of her Wednesday night meetings and the numbers of attendees, it refers to a book as "a practical guide" which is promotional, and the bulk of the article is links to articles and interviews of the subject. The whole thing is promotional. Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 24 August

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) 00:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusory Judgments without Details

Please refrain from making judgments about the promotional nature of the text and citation without reading the source material cited. It is very unprofessional and un-Buddhist like. You can't expect improvements to this text with the latest research on the topic if you label anything that enhances general knowledge about equanimity as 'promotion'. Equanimity is an established practice going back to the time of the Buddha, and testing the effectiveness of this practice using current neuroscience to determine whether a balanced state of mind can be cultivated through the practice is highly relevant to the general interest in equanimity, and does not promote any particular point of view. Either it is effective or it is not based on science. The promotion section of Wiki concerns 'self' promotion or promoting a particular point of view, and if you think 'promotion' means more than that you must state clearly the additional scope you think should be part of Wiki's effort to not engage in promotional activities, so other editors can weigh in concerning this and whether it really is part of the promotion Wiki intends to prohibit across its website, or is it an arbitrary, ad hoc addition you made up to justify your undoing the edit. Reverting edits based on vague, conclusory judgments without any supporting detail is disrespectful to the time taken by editors to try to improve Wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.111.137 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it. I have told you repeatedly now that the source is not reliable. It is undue weight to add this to multiple articles and since it is the only thing you are adding to multiple articles using identical text every time, this is clear promotional material. Please cease to use Wikipedia to promote this author. Dharmalion76 (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been thinking about converting to Buddhism, but i dont know if it is right for me.

Can anyone help me with this? Buddist401 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula might be of interest to you. Dharmalion76 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dharmalion76. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dharmalion76. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dharmalion76. 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)[reply]