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.

On 9 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro ordained the British monk who set up the first Theravada monastic community in Britain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Callanecc!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the status of this film article's quality on the talk page there. Recently, I have brought in a set of edits on Scorsese's film Kundun following a large number of edits I made to his more recent film Silence. The director's interest in both Buddhism and Christianity are of interest to many readers. If you have any requests for any enhancements you might like to see brought into the article during peer review for Silence, or possibly if you have time to do the peer review following my nomination of this film on the review page there, then this might be a good time to list your comments and suggestions since I have some free time in this coming week for editing the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. I still don't understand why the article had not been assessed before. I probably did not notice the politics going on. The assessment sounds interesting. Are you talking about a peer review or good article nomination? I have articles listed for both as well. On Buddhism.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC) @JohnWickTwo:.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If it sounds like a good approach then I've just recently added some new images to the Silence film and you could initiate the good article review on the top of the talk page for Silence whenever its convenient for you to start. After that I could offer to prepare further edits on the Kundun film in order to nominate it for promotion later in the month if that sounds like a useful approach. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to help, but i'd like your help with a peer review article of my own as well. I don't think that evaluating each others articles for GA simultaneously is a good thing, but your input on the peer review of this article here would certainly be a nice way to return the favor.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC) JohnWickTwo

Sounds good. It generally takes me a least a day to do a peer review and I'll need at least a day to look some things up. If I understand correctly then the next step along with my peer review leads to your review of Silence before you turn to your GBN article with the completed peer review. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, JohnWickTwo, we can start with Silence. To be frank, I have not seen this movie yet. I have read the article, however. Furthermore, I have not done any GA reviews yet, but I did nominate an article for GA successfully, and contributed as the main contributor to a list of B-class articles. If you think I qualify, I am okay with starting the GA.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, its a green light on both sides. You can initiate the review for the film by clicking the tab at the top of the talk page for Silence whenever you are ready. You can list your article concerns for the film on the review page which will be linked automatically for you. Here is a representative film review if its useful here: [1]. I've already read your article and should be able to get one or two things looked up today in order to type in the GBN peer review which you requested. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

JohnWickTwo, okay, I am working on it now. Will write a bit before saving. Meanwhile, I have noticed the large extent of vandalism before the article was protected. Do you know how this vandalism is motivated?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Last April there was a good deal of disruptive editing and page protection was set after some IP accounts were trying to force material into the article and refused to start talk. The protection looks appropriate. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Though a bit on the aggressive side, since most of the disruptive edits were sourced. Also, is there any particular reason why no reply was given here? It seems legitimate, and still, the references proposed have not been integrated in the article.

I am not blaming you for anything of course, but I just want to know if there has been any biased editing or censoring that I need to be aware of.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

My own edits on the article only started about a month ago, which was after the page protection was put on the article last April. If it helps, this edit identifies the last edit before the page protection last April here: [2]. Regarding the LA Times article request from the IP editors, I did include it just last week as an expansion to the reception section in the article (it is the Justin Chang review if you are interested). Separately, some good news on the peer review you requested since I was able to get to the library earlier today, and I should be able to type in the peer review before tomorrow morning. Then, I can start on your good comments on the film review page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand there was some POV-pushing and citing less reliable sources. Nevertheless, I feel too little leeway was given to some of the so-called vandals. Apparently, in the case of some editors, when the number of edits reaches the 10000s, so does their impatience. But past mistakes aside, with regard to the Global Buddhist Network article, all sources should be online, and if they're not, just let me know, and I'll find a way to send the sources as files to you. Unfortunately, many of the sources are in Thai language, so I don't expect you to check each source. Just reading the article and checking it for neutrality, clarity and such will be sufficient. I wouldn't want to impose on you to go to a library! JohnWickTwo, thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You were very prompt and I have typed in the peer review to get things started there. Separately, your concern for the IP-editor comments were of interest to me, especially since I have already added the LA Times article which they wanted to the article last week. Let me know if more material suggested from the IP-editors should be included, and it might help to switch to the film review page and my comments there for this. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks both for your beautiful work on the article. I'm usually not a fan of the GA-system, as I think it enables rather poor and lazy reviews, although I have to say, this was a pleasant surprise. Farang Rak Tham, your review was quite exceptionally thorough. I've undone the rubbing out of your comments, as I think they might be helpful for feature reviews of the article. JohnWickTwo, please feel free to open a peer review; I'll be happy to give you my comments. Whenever you're ready. CHeers, Gertanis (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Gertanis. I have tried my best, as it was my first GA review.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham; That was a fine effort for your first GA review and I think you may have a good feel for how to perhaps do more of them in the future. There are other films dealing with Buddhist themes and possibly you could look at some of them when time allows. @Gertanis: Your comments at Silence were appreciated, and I am placing the peer review for the film's possible enhancement towards future promotion. Separately, your comments on Kurosawa are in the article now and perhaps you could leave some comments about the Images included in the Kurosawa article as well on the review page there. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Gokhale Method, Farang Rak Tham!

Wikipedia editor Robertgombos just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Improved a bit the article. Very good!

To reply, leave a comment on Robertgombos's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Robert G. (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Mduvekot. Farang Rak Tham, thanks for creating Gokhale Method!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I have marked statements that are not supported by the sources cited with the failed verification template.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mduvekot (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Noticed your revert. Your edit summary is not supported by the source you cited. Please provide a source for your claim. This is content dispute, let's take it to the talk page. Mduvekot (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Mduvekot that i respond to this quite late, but I'm having some technical glitches that earlier prevented me from doing anything other than reverts, however odd that sounds. I'm happy to tweak the article through a good talk page discussion.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Well, I mean, of course I'm sorry you're having technical difficulties. Take your time. :) Mduvekot (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, just had two edit windows appearing simultaneously, but it seems to save now, lol.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Mduvekot, there's been considerable discussion regarding the content you've tagged. Please check the article to see whether the tags still apply, or whether the tags should be removed or changed. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look now. Mduvekot (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I've posted my feedback on the talk page. I hope you find them helpful, Mduvekot (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will take a look now. Oh and by the way, the glitch was due to a conflict between WikEd and the new syntax highlighting function.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Merit (Buddhism) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Doctorg -- Doctorg (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The article Merit (Buddhism) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Merit (Buddhism) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Doctorg -- Doctorg (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I want to apologise for my terse and impatient responses to you. I'm glad we're making progress, but I think we're approaching the article from very different perspectives as editors, which could continue to result in more clashes between us. I personally don't think that we can make much progress on the article without finding better sources. My impression from you is that you perhaps don't understand the nature of the concerns of other editors, and want to quickly resolve all issues regardless.

I have a standard approach to working on articles like this: Encouraging editors to find better sources. Finding agreement on the quality of the current sources. Determining how to best use the range of sources available. I've already started searching for better sources. Mduvekot has done a great deal on reviewing how the current sources are being used. I'd like to start a review of the quality of the sources, which we're missing at this point beyond a few comments on primary sources.

I hope we can find a way to work together more smoothly, and would like to hear your thougths on how it has gone so far and what changes you'd like to see. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ronz, apologies accepted. I am also sorry to slow in understanding you and the other editors, but this is the first and only alternative medicine article I ever wrote, and at first, i was not aware the policies for medicine articles were that different from other articles. We have the same aim in trying to upgrade the article and make it more encyclopedic, so I suggest we focus on that. I am reading up on Wikipedia policy with regard to medicine, but am not familiar with the medical databases and sources, despite coming from a family of physicians, lol. So I am not sure whether I can be of much assistance from now on, but I'll take a look now and then to see what I can learn and check whether the article will be deleted, haha. Anyway, it is not my article of course, just like Wikipedia is no-one's individual property.

That said, I have doubts as to whether the subject of the article is really that much opposed to clinical trial and scientific scrutiny, it seems to me it is just merely a method that is very new and needs more time to get systematic and scientifically sound. I think it lacks the irrational tendencies so characteristic of fringe theories, but proponents might be using the "language" of alternative disciplines now and then, which has in this case led it to get tagged for fringe.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place ((subst:Dobos Torte)) on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, 7%266%3Dthirteen, hahaha--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this revert. Doucleff is not a reliable source for any science, let alone for being given prominence over WHO research results. If you don't understand this, and how FRINGE requires us to present scientific consensus, then please discuss it on the talk page. This is exactly they type of edit that falls under ArbCom sanctions. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

See talk page and WP:BURDEN--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz:.

Thank you for responding and starting a discussion on the talk page. I've replied there. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And apologies for not adding the source from the start. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

On 14 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Merit (Buddhism), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Buddhism, the doing of good deeds, known as merit-making, is seen as a form of saving for the future? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Merit (Buddhism). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex Shih.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't want you seen as encouraging personal attacks against others, so reverted the comment. So how does that comment help improve the article in any manner? I'm trying to figure out how to write an RfC for the content dispute, but there's nothing to work from other than editors being upset about how copyright violations and plagiarism are addressed. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I didn't realize you were the editor involved with Gokhale Method. I hope we can address Berzin on the content issues there. --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ronz, as I said, his comment was nonsensical, but I felt it should not have been you who removed it. Considering your edits at the Berzin article and Gokhale, your efforts to improve articles often appear destructive, even if you intend to follow WP policies. Considering the large editing experiences you have, if you want to make it to admin, I'd suggest you become a little less deletionist. Anyway, that's my two cents coming from a newbie, but well-intended at that.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I find it best to focus on content and try to smooth over ruffled feathers best I can.

As far as the content issues go, I don't see how to make a useful RfC out of what's been discussed. Basically, some editors want to revert into the oversighted article history. If someone wants to try to get the oversight removed, they need to go through the proper procedures to do so. Given what's already been attempted, I hope everyone can see that it is unlikely anything productive would come of it.

The very first comment on the article talk page outlines what needs to be done to improve the article: establish notability and find independent sources for verification and expansion. We've made progress on establishing notability enough that it will likely stand. The rest of the discussions are attempts to find ways around the need for independent sources. From my perspective those discussions have gone nowhere, and strayed far from anything that looks like good faith attempts at improving the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Ronz, I agree with all of that, and I understand the problems with copyright and primary sources in the article. Still, WikiProject Buddhism has only a tiny group of active editors, so we'd have to be careful not to "bite" them away.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If the project is so concerned about the number of editors, then maybe they should actively educate their editors on policies and guidelines so these disputes are avoided. I don't do much other than use ((welcomeg)). It's a bit overwhelming, but both introduces editors to Wikipedia and provides a good reference. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm curious about something. I move normally on Spanish Wikipedia, we have there a noticeboard to report violations to the Etiquette, and it's also forbiden to blank your own user talk page, among other stuffs. But I'm not as familiar with the English Wikipedia. Do you know if such noticeboards exist here too?

Also, it is normal for a check usar request to take so long? In Spanish Wikipedia they are normally deal daily. --TV Guy (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

TV Guy, there's a list of noticeboards at WP:PNBD. On the English Wikipedia, it is not forbidden to blank your own user page, as the notices can be found in the page's history anyway. But archiving is recommended.

As for the sockpuppet investigation, there's a list of articles that they're researching on the main page. It seems we're on a waiting list, and i don't know how long it takes. It should be noted, however, that most types of notices on user talk pages, as soon as they reach level 5 (e.i. 5 notices on the same user page of the same type of misbehavior) are also sufficient cause for blocking a user.

On a more personal note, though i do believe notices should be continuously given to disruptive users, we should also try to work on making the article more reliable and complete, showing both positive and negative sides of the subject. The articles on the Dalai Lamas still consist of too many primary sources, whether pro or con. Since China has over one billion inhabitants, and they're not going anywhere, chances are the current disruptive editing is just a start. So working on improving the articles and preferably getting at least one Dalai Lama article to GA level may still be the best way to deal with the situation.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I don't think most Chinese people agree with their government on the Tibetan issue, most Chinese I met tend to be whether neutral or even pro-Tibet. Of course, Chinese migrants generally left their country because they were unhappy with the government on the first place. But indeed the amount of personal and resources a government would have will be hard to handle.

But yes, the articles in general should be more neutral, both in the positive and negative things. I myself tried to do a counterbalance. For the rest, I take notice, thank you. --TV Guy (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, TV Guy, and you have done a good job at that.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, likewise. --TV Guy (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You'd added

((User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(90d)

| maxarchivesize =10T

| minthreadsleft=10

| archive = User talk:Farang Rak Tham

))

The destination was incorrect. It should be something like:

((User:MiszaBot/config

| archive = User talk:Farang Rak Tham/Archive %(counter)d

| algo = old(90d)

| counter = 1

| maxarchivesize = 250K

| minthreadsleft = 5

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| archiveheader = ((aan))

))

maxarchivesize =10T gives an archive of 10 threads, and then goes to the next archive. Quite inconvenient; better set it to a maximum size like 250k. Or archive per year, as I do:

((User:MiszaBot/config

| archive = User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive %(year)d

| algo = old(7d)

| counter = 2017

| minthreadsleft = 5

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

))

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Joshua Jonathan! I have now removed the automated archiver and archived manually, but I will give it another go with the parameters you have set. Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is The Historical Status of China's Tibet. Thank you. --Verbcatcher (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting other editors to this discussion. When I inspected the edit history I mistakenly concluded that you had introduced the disputed text. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome, Verbcatcher, and I did defend the disputed text. With all due respect, but if there is no reliable source to support a statement that the book is fringe, then the WP article must be merged or deleted, in my opinion. Wikipedia is a summary of mainstream scholarship and notable minority opinions, but only if the latter are designated as such.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Farang Rak Tham. 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)

Hi, I've seen that article before – it was published in the Huffington Post, but there is nothing in it about the topic of the article. I don't really think the article on the March is the appropriate place for it, since the topic of the article is really only the March and the background information given by sources that covered the March to avoid WP:SYNTH but I appreciate your effort. I will check to see if there are any new sources since it has been a while since the article was created. Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System, You are welcome. I would be interested to do a GA review, but I wonder if the article is broad enough. If you are able to read Turkish, you could consider expanding the article based on local news and scholarly sources.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Edited.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The article covers all the reasons for the march that were given by media sources in the background section. If you look at the references section, you will see that the article does use quite a few different sources already, including Turkish press sources. The article you suggested is not about this March.Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I got that.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor, and I am confused by your reverting my recent edit to the Trungpa Rinpoche page.

It sounded like I didn't reference it properly...? I did see that it looked like there was a problem with the ref tag for the part I added, but I believe the reference itself was still available. If that's the issue, will you please help me to reference it properly?

If, instead, you feel that the reference is not relevant enough, or authoritative enough, then I would like to discuss this with you. I feel sure that it is worthy of inclusion.

Many Thanks,

Ordinarymind42 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)James

Ordinarymind42, the problem is not the formatting of the reference, but rather the source you are using. Wikipedia's reliable sources policy gives preference to sources that are peer-reviewed or have much editorial oversight. This usually means scholarly publications or articles from well-established news outlets. The website Buddhist Door which you cite has little of such oversight. Especially when it comes to giving opinions such as praise or criticism, the quality of the sources becomes more important. You might try searching in encyclopedias instead, or on Google Scholar, whilst avoiding citing primary sources such as Trungpa himself. For example, Irons' Encyclopedia of Buddhism has an article about him.^[1] I hope this helps.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Try this dictionary as well, on page 2263 of the pdf file there is an article about Trungpa.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I believe you are mistaken about the nature of the reference. The Buddhist Door page referenced contains a letter written by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche. The letter was first published on his Facebook page here (https://www.facebook.com/djkhyentse/posts/2007833325908805). Perhaps that would have been a better reference, but it didn't occur to me that way. The letter's content, and its author, are what make it important, not the sites on which it is published. I could reference it on another page, but I cannot imagine that the letter itself does not carry sufficient authority to be used as a referece. I would very much like to re-add the quote to the Trungpa Rinpoche page, as I do feel that it is significant to describe the singular place he, his teachings, and his lineage, hold in the expansion of Tibetan Buddhism in the West. Please let me know if you agree at this point, or if you feel there's something I'm not understanding. If you agree, or not, what are the next steps? Also, by the way, on the Trungpa Rinpoche page, I believe the quote of Diana Mukpo, his widow, is not the very best to use for that purpose, because of the source and because of the content of the quote. What do you think? Is it appropriate for me to remove that, or is there something I should do first? Many Thanks for your help.

The widow's opinion should also be removed, per WP:RS. Please read this link first, if you haven't yet.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Farang,

The musician has been a winner of several notable chamber music competition as it is stated in the article (First prize at the Shostakovich Competition, Third prize at the Maria Yudina Competition in St. Petersburg and Third prize at the ICMEC competition in Boston). He is also the Honored Worker of All-Russian Musical Society. This organization has a rather strict regulations for its nominees (e.g. substantial national presence, competition prizes, and limit for 20 nominations per year). Bezuglov has newspaper coverage in Russian national newspapers, including Muzikalnoe Obozrenie, Vecherni Rostov, and Nashe Vremya, and Ukranian press in Vechernya Odessa. He has records available on almost any media-source, including Apple iTunes, Rhapsody, MediaNet, Amazon MP3, Spotify, Google Music Store, Slacker Radio, YouTube Music, Pandora, and others. Also he is a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles: besides Class&Jazz, he is associate concertmaster, assistant principal second and first violin member member in six professional symphony orchestras in US, members of American Federation of Musicians. The article has plenty of secondary independent sources, specifically in Russian and the artist's notability is established. Therefore, I decided to remove your tag. --LPdynasty (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Farang, On June 24th @Jcc: “Declining submission: A nice article on a notable subject but too closely synthesized”, so Jcc sees the notability of the subject. On 20 September 2017 This article was accepted from this draft on 20 September 2017 by reviewer @Smmurphy:

Aside from her success in bring higher education to many people, Ms. Colson was among the first women to register to vote after the ratification of the 19th Amendment, and she was the first African American woman to become a lifetime member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. She is notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

In retrospect, I think you are right. However, the sources you are citing do little justice to the subject, and you should consider citing more substantial sources.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC) WomenArtistUpdates

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Faith in Buddhism you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Katolophyromai -- Katolophyromai (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wat Phra Dhammakaya you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Umph. Thanks, Mike Christie!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, you may have noticed you have two bullets at the start of one of your posts on the GA; that's because of the way Wikipedia does indentation. (I had to have someone explain this to me years ago, and I find even very experienced editors get it wrong, so I wanted to pass it along.) To indent, you're supposed to repeat exactly the sequence of colons and asterisks from the previous comment, and then put in your own colon (for an indent) or asterisk (for a bullet). So if you see "::" you should put "::*" or ":::". If you put "**" when the previous line was "::" it gets confused and gives you those two bullets. Just FYI. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, okay. I thought I had read somewhere you should choose either one, but I am not certain. Thanks anyhow.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Faith in Buddhism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Faith in Buddhism for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Katolophyromai -- Katolophyromai (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The article Wat Phra Dhammakaya you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wat Phra Dhammakaya for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

How would you feel about me reviewing one or more of your other GA nominations? They're sitting at the end of the queue, so I know you've been waiting a while, but you might prefer to have a different reviewer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, I very much appreciate that. Can you make time available?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I've taken a couple of them. I should be able to complete both reviews by next weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chandra Khonnokyoong you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The article History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Chandra Khonnokyoong you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chandra Khonnokyoong for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I listed her under "C" in the GA page; should it be under "K"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a matter of debate. Some scholars use Asians' first names when sorting names. I think it is okay this way.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

See here; it's a work in progress but I'm finding it useful. At GA-level it's less useful because it points out things that are optional for GA, such as consistency in use of locations in citations, but it also does things like spot "p. 4-5" and "pp. 4". It works on sections with specific titles, so sometimes it marks up footnotes because they're titled "References". If you have suggestions for improving it, I'm sure Lingzhi would like to hear them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie, What line of this script should I add to my user pages?

Here's the documentation page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike Christie.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed your activity on the Wat Phra Dhammakaya page and that you helped get it to Good article status. Thank you! I noticed that none of the photos on the page or the History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya page had photos of the standoff itself. I actually have several personal photos taken during the standoff that I have uploaded. Was wondering if you would find it suitable to upload a few to both of the pages.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dhammakaya_Standoff.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gates_of_Wat_Phra_Dhammakaya_during_Article_44.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Police_squadron_prepare_to_enter_Wat_Phra_Dhammakaya.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monks_and_laypeople_sit_peacefully_at_Dhammakaya_gates.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wat_Phra_Dhammakaya_street_during_article_44.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alms_offering_at_Wat_Phra_Dhammakaya_during_lockdown.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monks_from_other_temples_protest_Dhammakaya_lockdown.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dhammakaya_monks_sit_and_picket_soldiers.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dhammakaya_monks_chanting_with_soldiers.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Police_squadron_prepare_to_enter_Wat_Phra_Dhammakaya.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dhammakaya_monks_hold_signs_against_junta_forces.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lone_monk_at_Wat_Phra_Dhammakaya_during_article_44.jpg

Thank you again for your contributions and improving the articles to good article status. DhLeaks44 (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

DhLeaks44, Great! That's amazing. You are right, we didn't have that part yet. Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dhammakaya Movement you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Dhammakaya Movement you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dhammakaya Movement for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I have "importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');" in my common.js, too; I thought Lingzhi's script expanded on that but I think perhaps you need both to see the harv errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I added that script too. But maybe it doesn't work fully, because I have many other extensions running. Thanks anyway!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You could try asking at WP:VPT; lots of experts there and there's usually someone willing to help figure out what the problem is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. Just a small question, what message exactly appears when you have not used a source in the footer? So i know what to look for.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I get this: "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFSwearer2010." That's for an old version of Dhammakaya Movement. The message shows up in the list, right next to the citation. There's a slightly different message that shows up in the footnote for the reverse error, when an sfn doesn't lead anywhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No, no message there. Well, never mind. Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see discussion about your DYK hook for this article here. Yoninah (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Yoninah.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

On 25 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wat Phra Dhammakaya, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Wat Phra Dhammakaya contains a large monument with a million Buddha statues? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wat Phra Dhammakaya. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Good articles around Buddhism

Thank you for quality articles related to Buddhism, prompted by fascination, such as Faith in Buddhism and Wat Phra Dhammakaya, and a steady flow of other Good articles, for aspiring to even higher quality, for service in Dutch and Thai, for quoting "contribute, let go", - praising your merits: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, thank you! That's very kind.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maudgalyayana you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Great, Mike! Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dhammakaya meditation you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stedil -- Stedil (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Maudgalyayana you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maudgalyayana for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The first round of the WikiCup finished on 26 February. This GA was promoted on 27 February, so its points cannot be included in the first round and you will need to submit it again in the second round (when I have set it up). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for telling that, Cwmhiraeth. It does seem that my score has been raised, though. You might want to revert that, so I don't get accused of cheating afterwards. Merci.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed the submission yesterday and the bot should now have been through and adjusted the points. 210 points is correct for 6 GAs so I think it is now OK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

On 1 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Faith in Buddhism, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that people have underestimated the role of faith in Buddhism, according to translator and monastic Bhikkhu Bodhi? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Faith in Buddhism. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Casliber. But the date should be 2 March, not 1 March. I think the template has a bug.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Chandra Khonnokyoong at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GRuban (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with ((db-g7)), or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Four harmonious animals you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The article Four harmonious animals you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Four harmonious animals for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

On 8 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chandra Khonnokyoong, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an illiterate Thai nun became a highly revered spiritual leader in her community, and more than 250,000 people attended her funeral? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chandra Khonnokyoong. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The article Dhammakaya meditation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dhammakaya meditation for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Stedil -- Stedil (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

On 11 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dhammakaya Movement, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Dhammakaya Movement teaches that Nirvana exists as a literal reality within each individual? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dhammakaya Movement. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

On 13 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Charles Reynolds (cleric), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Reynolds (cleric). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with ((db-g7)), or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

On 23 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Thai Buddhist temple Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen organizes blood donations every three months? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bypassing the queue, Casliber.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 05:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

On 7 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Four harmonious animals, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the tale "Town Musicians of Bremen" by the Brothers Grimm has been connected with the Buddhist legend about four harmonious animals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Four harmonious animals. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Another good one, thank you! - Look for it on Portal:Germany ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel honoured, thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Actually, originally the article contained a statement that there is a German city which used the four animals in their coat of arms. But we weren't able to confirm this information--even though it had a reliable source--so it was removed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't confirm it, looking at the coat of arms of Bremen which doesn't have it obviously. Certainly Bremen has a giant sculpture, - although the animals never reached their destination, living happily ever after in the forest ;) - Psalm 84: Concepts of Eternal Life are soooo different that even the word "after" (death) seems out of place. A Catholic thinker said "Eternity is where time play no role", for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, I have removed the sourced claim about the Town musicians of Bremen being used in the Coat of arms of Bremen. Neither the old nor the newer coat of arms depicts the 4 town musicians. When I did some research in German sources, I found that the Marcks bronze statue became a "Wahrzeichen" of Bremen - just like the Bremen Roland or the Bremer Dom. Unfortunately, reliable sources may contain errors; in this case the English speaking author may have mistaken Wahrzeichen for coat of arms. JimRenge (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Wahrzeichen is normally translated as landmark, in the sense of a local symbol. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, i understood why and agreed that you removed it, Jim. I just think it's a bit mysterious that this mistake was made, that's all. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, just a question i was thinking to ask for a while: are there any German websites that collect freely available scholarly articles like Persee in French? I can read some German and would like to access German scholarship on Buddhist Studies.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, not that I know of. Perhaps ask project Germany? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

They have a Nationallizenz project for German citizens but nothing like Persee. I have rarely found good sources about Buddhism in German. Researchers like Zimmermann, Analayo, or Baumann tend to publish in English.Here are some tips for searching German literature; Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft is open access. The legal status of Library Genesis (books) and Sci-Hub (scientific journals) is disputed. Another (limited) option is [[3]] for journal articles, no matter what language. JimRenge (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That's more than i could hope for. Thanks, Jim!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Speaking of which, Gerda Arendt, do you think we should include the Four harmonious animals in the GERMANY Wiki project?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a bit away, but you can try, - why not? The DYK has everything related - however remotely - to Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

On 18 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Thai Buddhist temple Wat Phra Dhammakaya broke a Guinness World Record for organizing the longest journey walking over flower petals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History of Wat Phra Dhammakaya. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

On 21 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Psalm 84, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Psalm 84 about God's lovely dwellings was set to music by Heinrich Schütz, by Brahms in the centre of Ein deutsches Requiem, and as Wilhelm Kempff's Op. 1? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 84. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

On 23 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dhammakaya meditation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro set up a "meditation workshop" to practice Dhammakaya meditation in shifts? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dhammakaya meditation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

On 26 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maudgalyayana, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the nineteenth century, relics found in India were attributed to Maudgalyayana, a leading disciple of the Buddha? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maudgalyayana. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Global Buddhist Network you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Global Buddhist Network you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Global Buddhist Network for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The article Global Buddhist Network you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Global Buddhist Network for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Buddhist devotion you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Skyes(BYU) -- Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The article Buddhist devotion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Buddhist devotion for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Skyes(BYU) -- Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I speedy closed this; it's the wrong venue. You need to take the article to WP:AFD if you want the article deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Premeditated Chaos.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem, mistakes happen :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

On 10 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Buddhist devotion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one popular expression of Buddhist devotion is to go on pilgrimage to Bodh Gayā in India? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Buddhist devotion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I'm going to start working on Temperance movement soon. I will probably be gathering information and writing in my sandbox for now. That page gets a lot of views, so I won't be adding anything until it's fairly complete. You're welcome to take a look at my sandbox if you so desire. Also, let me know if you have any ideas about the approach you are taking or just any advice in general; I could probably use it. Congrats on the good article! ;) Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, Skyes(BYU)! I am doing two reviews now, but I will certainly be helping you later. What do you normally use to search for sources?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

On 11 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Global Buddhist Network, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Global Buddhist Network used to be a Thai television station featuring Buddhist content, but was shut down by the Thai military junta? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Global Buddhist Network. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You had restored[4] the removed edits by saying "Edits are sourced and seem legit to me". For now I have only checked one diff added by a sock and given that it violated copyrights, your edit seems to have restored it. Be careful with what you restore, it is often misrepresentation of sources or copyright violation or even hoax, especially when the edit was made by socks. Capitals00 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

(Comment by talk page stalker): Capitals00, it may be a good idea to revert edits by block evading socks [5]. However, I wonder why you have removed 12k. Looking into the last 500 edits, I don´t see MonsterHunter32 adding 12k. JimRenge (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I will not be jumping to any conclusions, but it would not be we the first time I see someone citing sockpuppetry investigations to further his own agenda.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It really depends on who was blocked. I have also seen those who were very good editors, but they made a mistake by abusing one or more undeclared accounts. No one has reverted their edits. I always check what I am reverting and in this case, thousands of bytes had been added by both MonsterHunter32 and an IP who has a history of violating copyrights[6] and he has also violated copyrights on this article as well by copy pasting from different articles without making a proper attribution. Though that's not something for which I would warn him but Competition from Hinduism and Jainism (added by IP) is similar to already existing Loss of patronage and donations. Given all these concerns and since I was pasting same edit summary on other articles, I pasted same edit summary on this article to indicate that I am reverting to a pre-sock version.[7] Capitals00 (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello! You have done an excellent job reviewing my articles about ancient Mesopotamian mythology. I was wondering if you might be interested in reviewing my article Gilgamesh, which I have recently nominated for "Good Article" status. You do not necessarily need to review it right now; I am in no particular rush, but, since your reviews are always so thorough and this is the article in the subject area of Mesopotamian mythology that receives the highest average number of page views, I thought it would be a good idea to ask you if you would consider reviewing it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Kato, That would be please me much, and I had been planning on it. I have always loved the Gilgamesh epic...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Kato, are you familiar with all the sources used in the article? I noticed you did 32% of the article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with all the sources used in the article. I actually wrote far more than just thirty-two percent of the article; that percentage is based on the amount of text added, but it does not take into account the removal of pre-existing text and replacement with new text. Since I removed most of the text that was in the article before and replaced it with my own text, most of my contributions are not registered in that percentage. If you check the "authorship" percentage further down on the page, you will actually see that I wrote 86.9% of all the text that is currently in the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I believe you, no problem. Anyway, even if you wrote only a small part, it's familiarity with the sources that is essential to GA review, in my opinion.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The comment that I modified on the talk page was my own, not someone else's- at one point my signature used my name rather than my username, but it seems to be confusing some people so I changed it to match. No change to any content was made. You reverted me on the AfD page and deleted my entire contribution, which included several sources that could be used for the article. It's fine to edit your own comment as you did, but don't remove contributions from other users to a discussion. --Spasemunki (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you had good intentions, but your edit effectively altered and deleted my edits, and removed Nosebagbear's and Anthony Appleyard's. Who of these users was your alias I don't know, but I know for certain that I am not, so please leave my edits alone.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Pinging.

Sorry, looks like I clicked through a notification and edited an older version of the page. --Spasemunki (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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 that 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.

--Ronz (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So you have told me many times, Ronz. Censure is not helping your cause.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I'm having a difficult time as seeing your responses as anything other than personal attacks directed at me. Perhaps we can focus on something else that we could use to improve the article? --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not meant personal, but informing someone many times of possible disciplinary measures on him, without real evidence of misbehavior, isn't the correct way of communicating on Wikipedia, Ronz. It is what people do when they threat one another.

--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The message above is no threat, just an alert to give you clear warning about special editing restrictions. If there are other comments that I've written that you feel are threatening, I'm happy to refactor them. --Ronz (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Just make things specific, Ronz. If you think I am doing something wrong, point at the behavior and the policy prohibiting it and we can move on.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The message above is no threat, just an alert to give you clear warning about special editing restrictions. Is that unclear? --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that's very clear to me, Ronz. It is also clear to me that you have already warned me about these possible sanctions several times with regard to the Gokhale Method article, without providing any rationale what I did to violate any restrictions or why I should be warned. I don't see why it is required to bring it up each time. It is my right to revert your edits, if insufficient explanation has been provided by you. This right still holds, no matter what restrictions apply. I consider bringing up these sanctions each time I edit as a form of inappropriate editing, and possibly tendentious. If you want me to be more careful, then so should you.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I think it best that I don't respond further. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)