This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan pseudoscience and fringe science genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Hi Jim, with regards to Divine Truth, there is literally a section called Accusations of Cultism. So is that section not sourced either? It seems to be. Correct me if I'm wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.27.174 (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for all your work cleaning up Wikipedia Buddhism articles and working on so many citations, references, and external links. This type of editing does make a real difference, and it is appreciated. Tengu800 16:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nanto Rikushū, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huayan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Buddhism Barnstar
		Your name pops-up may times; thanks for all the good work you're doing! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a question!! Are you actually a buddhist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesige putha (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, it is nice to get some positive feedback from an experienced editor  :-) Best regards JimRenge (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you help to expand the above mentioned article?--Catflap08 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I can use info + ref from Reiyukai. JimRenge (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you could add 2 sentences about their political wing that is represented in the diet, their 30 000 membership, the name of their (in 2006) leader and quote his views about the taboo of discussing a Japanese atomic bomb (cited in the the NYT), the article should be a stub and pass the controls. I think the organization is notable and the information is sufficiently referenced. JimRenge (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	cheers Catflap08 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! JimRenge (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello JimRenge: no problem with your removal of credentials. You are in fact correct on this point. Thank you for all the great work towards enhanced accuracy and utility that you have been doing since you joined Wiki. Warm wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check this edit [1], obviously a primary source. But this page also requires a 3rd opinion. Thanks and have a look. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I always try to help, but some months ago, when I saw this article for the first time, I decided it would be a waste of time for me to edit this one or to add it to my watchlist. Perhaps you can ask Joshua for a 3rd opinion. (Yes, the sutras cited, are primary sources.) JimRenge (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I'm of the same opinion: waste of time. But for the sake of preventing edit-wars, I'll have a look. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks! JimRenge (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe you could chip in on the Nichiren article. I guess Ltdan means no harm but it was so much hard work to get the article to it's (still not perfect) state. I would hate getting nitty gritty sectarian issues blow it out of proportion yet again. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just counted the number of reverts, it might be helpful to discuss his text in more detail. I read the text in Buswell first and half of the Stone/Tricycle Interview (all I could get). I will comment on the talk page. JimRenge (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, you brave one, know what you're getting involved in.... Wish you wisdom and strenght! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to have prophetic capabilities :-). JimRenge (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jim, can you also had a look at Nichiren Shōshū article. Just like Buddhism in Singapore, there is another user named Tokuburai had add in a lot of original research and source into the article.Kelvintjy (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the article is insufficiently sourced and it appears to be a battleground of adherents and opponents of this school. The article is inherently unstable and attempts to improve it may perhaps be a waste of time. You might consider to send a user info or warning template concerning the addition of unsourced content to Tokuburai. JimRenge (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jim renge don't take in a negative way. I have quoted from the verifiable sources and they are not primary. Thanks. Discuss with me if you wish. Stalkford (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This new editor is up for trouble, I'm afraid. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I have recently learned that it is better to give warnings right from the start of disruptive editing. I see no insight (ANI). JimRenge (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANEW Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, this was too much. JimRenge (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for warning me up with edits on Talk:Buddhist cosmology. But I'm afraid Buddhism will get warp if discussions may not as accurate as essentialWesige putha (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[2] I never saw first1, last1 before, good edit! Bladesmulti (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry Jim, some editor got me angry there. See also Indo-European migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I saw it nearly in real time and thought it was a funny mistake. Good work at Buddha nature, I don`t miss the Prajnaparamita section. JimRenge (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Religion in Norway

Thanks a lot JimRenge for pointing out the absence of source. I will provide you source regarding 3.4% figure quickly. Thanks a lot.Septate (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear JimRenge, following reliable source gives an estimate of 3.7% for Muslims in Norway.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/table-religious-composition-by-country-in-percentages/

When it comes to image, I think its not wp:UNDUE because image of a Church is also present on the article. It just depicts the religious diversity of Norway. Look at Religion in Guinea-Bissau, it is an image of a church in the lead despite the fact that Christians are only 10% of total population. I hope you will understand. Happy Ramadhan.Septate (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When it comes to religion in Slovakia, the source which I stated is pretty much reliable because it gives a brief description of Muslims in Slovak lands. I got this source from Islam in Slovakia which states that The number of Muslims is unknown but there might be 5000 Muslims in Slovakia. Looks nothing wrong with it. Thanks again.Septate (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lets continue this discussion on your talk page where it began. I will copy your text to your talk page. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop!

Please stop wikihounding me. Atleast inform me before you make any reverts. Take the example of religion in Kazakhstan. I have provided source. It was your responsibility to ask me to provide source but you simply reverted. Furthermore, your edit summaries at religion in Macedonia were deceptive because there was no image of mosque in Judaism section. If image of mosque was looking too big to you then you should have edited its capitation instead of removing whole image. Use common sense!Septate (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to discuss specific edits on the corresponding article talk pages. Please read the comments of several editors on your talk page regarding WP:OR, unconstructive editing, systematic removal of Hinduism, violating the three-revert rule etc. I don`t think that the many corrections, reverts, comments and warnings regarding your edits are wikihounding. If you feel you have good reasons to complain, you might consider following the processes outlined in WP:DR. JimRenge (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have still not responded to my question at Talk:Religion in the Czech republic. I am waiting.Septate (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some attention

Please have a look at Religion in Liberia, Religion in Somalia and Religion in Ethiopia. A user named as HudaSatria is changing estimates with out proper sources. See his edit history [3]. Since I am a mobile user, I have to do reverts manually which is extremely difficult. I have reverted his edits on Religion in Tanzania and Religion in Kenya and also left a message on his talk page but he left no respose. Also please tell me if Joshua project is a reliable source for statisticd about religion, since it is a christian evangelical website.Thanks.Septate (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted his unexplained change of statistical data (not in source) at Religion in Liberia, the other problematic edits of HudaSatria were also reverted. Using the Joshua project as a source for statistical data does not seem to be a good choice. I would prefer neutral, non-sectarian sources. JimRenge (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And vice versa :-) JimRenge (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, would you mind explaining [1]? Not only that, you reverted the corrected percentage of Japanese people not believing in God (64%, not 65%), according to Demerath in "Crossing the Gods" (2001).

E: Apparently "rvv" is short for "reverted vandalism"... --Diblidabliduu (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I have realized that this was a good faith edit. My mistake, I have self-reverted. JimRenge (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VictoriaGrayson/sandbox/Dorje_Shugden_controversyVictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My last change,

Hello Jim. Hope you are fine. You reverted one of my change that I did on B.R. Ambedkar page. . Just want to inform you that my last change was not against consensus or was a laundry list. So please read the difference before you revert it again. Thanks.Akhil Bharathan (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

question about content.

Hello Jim Renge, How are you? I asked a question from you Dr.B.R Ambedkar's talk page about the lead. I am of the view that the sentence of his concept as a Bodhisattva should be in lead and rest of his things are already covered in body. I don't think there should be a problem now. Answer me now. Akhil.bharathan (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your last comment on the BR Ambedkar talk page was no question. If you have more questions about the interpretation of WP:LEAD in this context, you might ask the experienced editors at the teahouse. JimRenge (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this is about the edit war.

Why do you keep changing my addition of word 'economist' to the BR ambedkar page. He was an well renouned economist and he made sure India will follow socio economic policy according to the constitution. please give a valid reason at earliest otherwise kindly be a gentleman and let me edit the page peacefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutvickpedamkar (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no consensus on the talk page for the addition of more professions in the lead. JimRenge (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing out good practice on the Wikipedia talk section!

Kathedra87 (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jim, My sincerest apologies - I mis-clicked on "Helpsome". No intention whatsoever of "bad practice"! Again thank you for your help as I negotiate through wiki pages! Peace to you ~ Maura Kelley— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maura Kelley (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Jim, the message posted to Helpsome's talk by me goes as follows: Helpsome, The information you removed was simply a neutral reporting of expert professional Wildlife Ecologists and Biologists' scientific analysis. The reports are professional and public documents, and the public has a right to know what the scientists in the field of their expertise have to say (I believe). I request that you please check with your supervisors before making such a judgement decision as to delete their information. This is in NO WAY meant to be any kind of PROMOTION. Perhaps they can explain to you directly if needed? Thank you, Maura Kelley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maura Kelley (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You forgot to copy-paste: "Please send me your email address so I can have the professional wildlife experts and their attorneys contact you." JimRenge (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, glad to explain it. If you look at the article on Undue burden test, there is a cite from a recent court case, in turn citing a prior decision, that characterizes the Undue burden test in exactly those words in quotes within quotes: "Middle way". If you want to edit it down, that's fine with me. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the comparison between Chapter 4 of the Lotus sutra and the simile of the prodigal son in the form I had written it might not fit into the teachings section of the article. I have extended the article of the Prodigal son, drawing on the sources you cited. However, I think there should also be some linking / connection between the articles so that the reader of the Lotus sutra article is aware of this similarity. Additionally, the parable is currently not even mentioned in the sutra article at all. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathedra87 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this comparison might better be mentioned in an article "Parable of the poor son (Buddhism)". In the Lotus Sutra article it might be perceived as giving undue weight to misconceptions about one of the 7 (Skt. version: 8) parables in the LS. JimRenge (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[4] uses the quote... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I preferred to cite another private website of Dr. Tony Page: English translation of excerpts from the Angulimaliya Sutra by Stephen Hodge, year unknown, p. 20.

The "Texts" section (subsections: Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra, Anunatva Apurnatva Nirdeśa, Angulimaliya Sūtra) uses religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them ... Similar problems: Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra / central teachings and Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdesa. JimRenge (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you recently warned a user about the edit they made to the Bodhidharma page. Their edit was not purposely disruptive. They meant to type 7aum Arivu, which translates as "7th Sense." This is a fictionalized portrayal of Bodhidharma's life. I just thought you might like to know. I personally feel the movie is too trivial to add to the page anyway. Best regards, --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the revert of their edit was justified because it did not improve the article and did not conform with WP:lead, but you are right, the warning was too much (self-revert). Thank you very much for your feedback, I`ll think twice in similar situations. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read Historian R. Thapar's Book given there. It's an argument, not an assertion. There is no God in Buddhism but Ashoka called Himself as the "Beloved of the Gods". [5] Read this to know that there is no God or Gods in Buddhism. Ashoka's personal religion is very doubtful and that must be clearly stated. I'll wait for your reply. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have copied your comment to Talk:Ashoka and will answer there. JimRenge (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kalakannija self-identifies as a Neo-Nazi here FYI. How do we escalate this issue of his growing pattern of harassment. Ogress _smash! 18:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He also apparently is sockpuppetting as User:Wesige putha: Diff Ogress _smash! 18:31, 25 August 2014

I'm a cannibal too in auswitch so? Kalakannija (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kalakannija: Please be careful about what you say to people. JimRenge (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Either ignore or block indef. See also diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joshua Jonathan: Difficult to ignore (SP, CIR, increasing harassment, unconstructive editing, also by suspected SP Master, etc.) and possibly difficult to block indef. I added warning templates to the talk pages of both accounts. JimRenge (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ogress _smash! do you think administrative intervention (SPI?) would be helpful? I expect more trouble from these accounts. JimRenge (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think you see a pattern emerging, yes. I see you and JJ pointing out possible sockpuppetry. I haven't had any further run-ins with the user but my interactions have been extremely surreal (c.f. the whole 'I'm a cannibal from Auschwitz' thing). Ogress _smash! 20:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like Kalakannija may be upset in some way; I'd prefer to approach him in a friendly way. Might be better for his well-being. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Jim, There are lot of incorrect information about Bodu Bala Sena page! please try to find correct and true infomation.Don't use anti bodu bala sena websites and news as all references.Quality of wikipedia becoming low from these articles!Use fair,true news articles and websites as references and edit that page! hope you will attention to this matter. thankyou! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randeepa (talk • contribs) 06:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Jim, I like to share my thoughts on Bodu Bala Sena(BBS). BBS is National Socialist Movement(Antisemitic) in Sri lanka fellow of UPFA the use of violent intimidation to manipulate local economic activity, acting represent for the liberation of Buddhists & make offense on other religions . My-self attended a BBS convention held At Japan-Sri Lanka Alliance temple @Kushinagar. They revealed, they associates with zen NGOs manipulating buddhists as Aryans to dominate nobility among Sinhalese the majority of the country. I believe thy have a capitalistic approach in Economy of Sri Lanka.Amanussya 21:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankumaraya (talk • contribs)

Hi, I noticed that you've removed Solatido's blog which was being used as a reference on Ashoka. FYI, he appears to have been promoting his blog (and what appears to be a self-published book) on Wikipedia since 2008. What can be done about this/Where do I report this?--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for notifying me, I did not realize the problem. The blog and the book are not WP:RS, the book is definitely self-published.

I have removed some of the links in some (but not all) articles and have added a warning on his talk page.

"What can be done about this/Where do I report this?": You may check his edits (as far as I understand, he changed his user name) and remove SPS links, SPS-referenced/unsourced text or text that does not comply with WP:NPOV, WP:OR.

He is possibly ignorant of the relevant WP-policies: if he re-introduces SPS or introduces new SPS, these should be reverted and additional warnings given on his talk page. If he does not stop after being informed/warned of policy violations several times, you can report him at ANI. JimRenge (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed his book references and blog links from ~9 pages. I might be mistaken, but I think that that's all of them. I've also excised quotes from his book that were included in a couple of articles. Hope this is fine and thanks for the procedural pointers :) Cheers.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the not, I wasn't careful with the reverting or undoing and i mad a mistake with keeping reverting but the thing the user:Rajatantra kept changing the numbers and removing sources. Have nice day :-).--Jobas (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also reverted him - but not 4 times. I just did'nt want to see you blocked. :) JimRenge (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you :-), I appreciate it :-).--Jobas (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anderson (1999) and Vetter (1988) can both be found at the web as pdf. Especially Vetter is a "must"-read; Bronkhorst (1993) is also very good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the tip, I already thought it might help to read the references ... BTW many of the references/books lack a page number. JimRenge (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is the link to the treasurehouse: A handful of Leaves. I first reworked the article, copy-editing the references and notes; then I removed stuff; and then I was able to write out my thoughts. No time yet for page-numbers; first the overall story. Which is fascinating, and pretty amazing: why isn't Vetter in any popular book on Buddhism? He's revolutionary! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first one clearly states that "the Amitabha oracle is a game..." so it isn't actually an informative link. That second one definitely doesn't belong. Right at the beginning of that "almanac" is says "(taken from discussions on Internet forums about Yoga, God, religion, mysticism and spirituality)" Number 10 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID lists discussion forums as things not to link to. If this is just an aggregate from various forums, it amounts to the same thing: linking to a forum discussion. Helpsome (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can your revert the changes in Gautam Buddha birth placd. All over the world knows that Nepal has the birth place and why should wiki has it written also in India. Few of the so called indian archeologist with the help of local government build similar artificial monuments that are lying in Lumbini. They have even named it kapilbastu and tomorrow you will write that Kapilbastu is in India. This article violates the belief of the nepali people and truth. Thank you. So kindly delete any words there saying gautam buddha was born in india.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipuhere4u (talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, editors should try to present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. (see WP:VERIFY)

You have removed reliable sourced text because you disagree with its content. I have reverted your edit because I think it did not comply with wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. It also seemed to ignore the discussion at the article talk page. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah Brother Dipuhere4u Donot be disheartened. Since the world knows the birth place of Budhha in Nepal and I provided External Links like UNESCO U..N...E..S..C..O. They removed it. Do Wiki guys can rely on that??? No Wikipedia donot believe in it. They believe in India. As Indian PM Modi told them not to make birthplace of Buddha in Nepal, so they felt pressurized. Oh Dipuhere4u bro do u know the Indian propaganda??? They have built Lumbini in Piparhawa VDC, Uttar Pradesh 😂😂 decades ago. 😃😃 Budhha was born in Piparhawa, UP, India in 1990 AD. And the best part do u know Wikipedia believes it completely😃😃😃 This makes Wikipedia's own reliability better. They are part of Indian Propaganda like Fake INDO ARYAN INVASION THEORY, FAKE BUDDHA BIRTHPLACE in Piparhawa😁, FAKE MT EVEREST, VS Naipaul's origin. And bro dont be famous if u got fame then u will be also born in India automatically. ALL FAMOUS NEPALIS ARE ALWAYS INDIANS. Even they are making Nepal, an Indian State. And these guys are believing blindfoldly. Nepal is a minnow country in front of them. So they donot hear us neither do they see us. They hear Giants and Powerfuls. Wikipedia I just shared you a Reliable Source like UNESCO, ECONOMIC TIMES, HUFFINGTON POST. But you guys donot believe them. U believe in Jay Uttar Pradesh Patrika, Chauhan and Mishra ji Papers, Piparhawa Daily. When I edited without source, they asked for reliable source. When I edited with source, they called it advertisement. WHAT SHOULD I DO KNOW?? TELL ME WIKIPEDIA. Speaking the truth is never advertisement. God knows the Indian Imperialists. Wikipedia I know you guys are US BASED. U proud of your Democracy. Is this Democracy???? Humble Regards Thapa Kaazi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thapa Kazi999 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) Thapa Kazi999, yes that's how I feel everyday: pressured by the Indian government and anxious for the American watchdogs breathing on my back. That must explain many of the editorial choices I've made recently. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jayaguru-Shishya Thanks for telling the truth. Im also huge fan of Indian PM Narendra Modi who's been following footsteps of Great American Imperialism. His speeches are great every time claiming Buddha was born in India. India is top 5 political power. Did that made you wiki guys trembling to write BUDDHA WAS BORN IN NEPAL??? Humble Regards Thapa Kaazi

I'm glad I'm not the only one. It hurts me, though; the intentions are definitely good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Hafspajen (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Thank you for the holiday wishes! I hope yours are good, too Helpsome (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wondered about the relevance of your reason for reverting away my contribution to the Lead of Shingon Pilgrimage. The last paragraph reads: "Attesting to the popularity of the Shikoku pilgrimage, from the eighteenth century a number of smaller imitative versions have been established.[2] These include a 150 kilometres (93 mi) circuit on Shōdo Island northeast of Takamatsu;[3] a 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) course on the grounds of Ninna-ji in Kyoto;[4] a route on the Chita Peninsula near Nagoya;[5] and circuits in Edo and Chiba Prefecture.[2]"

I added to this paragraph: "Outside of Japan, another version is on the Hawai'ian island of Kaua'i[6]."

Your comment in reverting this was: "please see WP:LEAD". But the Lead is by far the longest section in the article, and my contribution is closely related to the information immediately preceding. Would you rather that I start a new section for the one sentence that I added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrykoen (talk • contribs) 01:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for starting a new section: Imitative versions. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The added sentence seemed to add more details to the lead. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Your simple question made it clear what Wikipedia is about. What a waste of time by our drama-queens. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: how about archivating your talkpages? User talk:JimRenge/Archive 2013 Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC) No, thanks but I need one more sandbox or subpage.Reply[reply]

I read the section when I had seen your comment: "The fact that "karma" wasn't a major concept in early Buddhism seems to be incomprehensible for my critics;". I think the word fact might provoke Robert to reply with one of his essays.

Reading the section in karma in buddhism, it rather seems to be a conclusion of several authors. :) JimRenge (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've rephrased it. And yes, multiple authors indeed. Fascinating topic, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it's impressing what experts can achieve by text analysis. JimRenge (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jim, you said you wanted to be notified for any ANI. Well I haven't started one yet, was too busy undoing vandalism yesterday. The edit you reverted yesterday, the photo of a supposed triggering event was reverted as I am sure you know. I had reverting fatigue and didnt revert him.

THAT particular photo cannot stay, given the WP:OR title that the editor 88.73.216.34 made up, as I have explained on his talk page. The editor is unwilling to discuss anything n his talk page or the Pegida talk page.I think the person just wants to have a photo, since there's one for the counter demonstrations.This could be the olive branch for a compromise; the reversals made him mad causing him to make WP:PA- calling us "paid British editors", to my big surprise.

Second problem in my view: missing citations for the bar graph chart numerical values. the sources need to be next to the data points. Formal issue maybe, but I am unwilling to repair this because I do not know which citation is for which data point. Can you please help, for example with a message to the guy or if he is unwilling to discuss, revert and report if 3RR? --Wuerzele (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the image description was fringe. I have commented on commons on the description. PEGIDA sympathizers might be calmed by a picture of their demonstration. Please consider to change the offending photo with this one: Köln stellt sich quer – nokögida 5. Januar 2015-3799.jpg (depicts PEGIDA adherents).

I will try to restrict myself to reverting blatant POV, vandalism etc. and to support at ANs. JimRenge (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't convinced that "Pegida" is more common than "PEGIDA". Therefore, it was moved back. You can request a move. --George Ho (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see the Pegida talk page/survey re page move to "pegida". There seems to be a consensus for Pegida. JimRenge (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I did see it. It consists of involved editors. I'm still not convinced. You can add ((subst:requested move)) at the bottom of the article's talk page. George Ho (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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! 14:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your proposal! You wrote "If this doesn't work to at least stop the flood of comments, then the proposal (?) of a topic-ban for Buddhism-, India- and Mars-related articles is the next step." I think the following sanction should be very clear. Does he edit India-related articles? In that case he should get the corresponding template warning of sanctions in this area. JimRenge (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hadn't thought about that. But posted this notification at Talk:Karma#Proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker. Thanks for your support. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You reverted vandalism on this page. Thanks for that! Happy new year.Mingling2 (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia! I'm still new to this side of the page, so any help is definitely appreciated!

Best regards,

Dansande Björn (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for just about the only keep !vote that made any sense whatsoever, I don't mind people voting keep, but they should at least give a reason why. Also, you went out of your way to add references before !voting in order to support your vote. I was going to go crazy if one more person !voted keep without giving a single valid reason why it should be kept. I'm still concerned if there is enough information about the topic to warrant it's own article, but it stands a much better chance now. Cheers. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. When I saw the Afd, I just wondered if I might be able to find reliable sources.

I agree with you, voting without giving a valid reason makes no sense. Some people do not realize that such votes will not be taken into account. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wasn't the last edit of propositional was a minor? And if you are editing a page, do edits all together! ~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 16:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the diffs at the ARE. You really did some digging there; it was quite revealing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was quite annoyed about this incident. I perceived it as a violation of the NPOV policy and an attempt to remove the evidence of the misrepresentation of sources, using the copyvio argument. Andy clarified it:

"Your refusal to address the point that the sources had previously been misused and actually said something else is visible in plain sight on the talk page. (...)" AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"(...) The point is that the sources cited actually said something else - and that you refused to discuss this. (...)" AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

In the ANI, Blades was quite successful in using the copyvio allegations as a red herring. JimRenge (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there! The sources are saved in the article right now, and those ones have been moved to ==Further reading== that have been added there by user JanetAlisonHoskins, or that have been added into sources but haven't been used in the article. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jim Renge! I got your notice. I am wondering who you are! I failed to correct the article. Please, discuss with me if you are a Buddhist scholar. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rleakey (talk • contribs) 10:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HI Jim,

I am referring to you the two authentic page for dating the Buddha time. Please, edit the date accordingly...

• http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131125-buddha-birth-nepal-archaeology-science-lumbini-religion-history/
• http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666

With Regards

R Leakey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rleakey (talk • contribs) 00:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker)Hello RLeaky. Regarding the NG-article, see note 9 in the Gautama Buddha article. See note 5 for the dating. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comment Joshua!

@Rleakey, please take your time to read the article on Gautama Buddha, including the many notes and references. 2109 editors have worked on it in the last 13 years [6] and have discussed edits at the articles talk page (see also: archives [7]!).

The following accessible publications summarize more than a 100 years of research on "Dating of the Historical Buddha": [8], [9]. This publication is just a very small new piece in the big puzzle and the anonymous author of the UNESCO website repeats the traditional dating (623 BCE) and does not appear to be aware of the scholarly debate.

Please try to reach a consensus at the articles talk page, before you change the text about the Buddhas birthplace or birth date. The articles talk page is the best place to discuss, because 746 editors are regularly watching the page. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for your reply. You did not try to understand my short reply. I told you that I am familiar with this debate. I am familiar with these literature. In fact, the approach of philology could be helpful in dating the text but not in dating the Buddha himself. We all know that the Pali canon was written in Sri Lanka in the first century BC. No matter how accurately memorized there is always chance to be influenced by recent dialects or language. In conclusion, Norman and Cousins works cannot be profound basis for dating the Buddha. For this we need other peer works from archaeology, anthropology and other sources. Recent archaeological work is here, read it. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9424004&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0003598X00049899. I admit that the article has some setbacks but it is far reliable than linguistic approaches. Other hands, UNESCO is an established and reputed organization, and it far reliable than those individuals' articulations. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rleakey (talk • contribs) 12:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rleakey, Coninghams publication has been discussed here. If you wish to continue this discussion, you might consider to copy/paste the relevant parts from your text on this page to the article talk page (bottom!).

There are more editors interested in this, and the current consensus can only be modified at the article talk page. Therefore, it makes no sense to continue this discussion on my private talk page. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings JimRenge! Just for your information, I am just learning more about the correct use of refs, so please bear with me if I am making mistakes at Cao Đài or Vietnamese folk religion :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jayaguru-Shishya, sfn-style is excellent! See Buddha or Zen (better) for examples. If you click at the short cite, you get automatically to the full citation in "Sources"! It does not work now in Vietnamese folk religion. You have to follow this style: ((sfn| Baroni | 2002 | p = 230)). Cao Đài is very bad, because the citation style is inconsistent. Enjoy ... JimRenge (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you use the Cite/Templates/cite Journal function for the Rozko citation? There seems to be some problem with the "automatic". JimRenge (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there! I am fond of sfn-style too since, when compared to <ref></ref>, it helps to reduce the number of items in the reference list drastically. It's also really convenient to use and in case of any changes in the reference, all the information can be updated through one single edit.

Anyway, when it comes to the Roszko source, it seems there was a misspelling (Rozsko -> Roszko), and it should be fixed now. I've not been able to edit during this weekend, but my intention was to keep updating the Sources list piece by piece beginning from next week! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There’s no hurry. JimRenge (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings! I was wondering if you knew how to proceed when we have two sources from the same year by the same author? For example, we've got "God's Chosen People": Race, Religion and Anti-Colonial Struggle in French Indochina (Hoskins 2012) and What Are Vietnam's Indigenous Religions? (Hoskins 2012). With the ((sfn)) ones, both references were linking to the same piece in the Sources -list. I tried adding a letter after the year (e.g. 2012a) to distinguish between the sources, but unfortunately that didn't yield any harvest =F Any ideas...? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Woaaa, you answered my question at my Talk Page already before I even managed to post on yours! Anyway, I added (a) and (b) to the lastname just like you suggested. I am not sure if there is some MOS guideline for that, but at least technically it's working and distinguishing between the sources. Thanks a lot! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just mind-reading.  :-) I guess the year format" is fixed, but the author/text-field is not. JimRenge (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings! As you are becoming somewhat an ((sfn)) mentor to me (even though you might not wanted this highly responsible task), could you please have a quick look at Just in time (business)? :-) I tried to change two sources[10][11] into the ((sfn)) format, but I cannot figure it out why the actual links from References to Sources ain't working. =F Cheers and Happy Easter! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add ((refbegin)) at the top of the sources-list (after the header), and ((refend)) at the end. And change ((cite book| in ((Citation|. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. JimRenge (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh boy... How come I missed that even though I have added those even myself? Thanks Joshua Jonathan! Well, I'm just a newbie in regards to these things :-P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you point out what was wrong in there? I can tell what was wrong with the old page:

1. The information on bimbisara is replicated at two places: bimbisara and haryanka dynasty. Shouldn't the information be only on 1 page and the other should point to it. 2. The same is true for ajatshatru. By replicating information in multiple pages, yo u introduce the chances of future errors. Someone in future may correct one page and miss the other. 3. What is the need of a map is Persian empire while talking about haryanka dynasty without providing any details.

Kindly talk to me or warn me before changing anything? If there is anything that need reference, I will provide ( and I did). (previous unsigned edit by) User:Didwania

Hi, on Bimbisara you have added new information without providing a reliable source (see: WP:BURDEN):

• Bimbisara was a contemporary of both Gautam Buddha and Vardhaman Mahavir.
• reign = 544–492 BCE /changed data
• Annexation of Anga/ added section is unsourced
• before=Bhattiya

Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, editors should try to present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. (see WP:VERIFY)

Some overlapping information in related articles is allowed and may be helpful. There may have been too much info on Bimbisara in the haryanka dynasty article. You have been reverted by Bladesmulti on haryanka dynasty, please discuss these edits at talk Haryanka_dynasty. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some redundancy is different than replication.

What if there are already references in the page? Do you expect everyone to cite the page numbers?

I will make only 1 more statement: little or no information is better than incorrect /replicated information. Replicated info, by nature, is going to get out of sync. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didwania (talk • contribs) 13:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There should already be references in every article! Articles without refs may be tagged and deleted. In case there is already a reference on the page that verifies the text you added (we expect you to check that), you can duplicate the ref and change just the page no. You asked "Do you expect everyone to cite the page numbers?" The answer is: yes! (@Joshua Jonathan, [12], [13], [14], [15]; some people complained about lacking page no in the ARE ) JimRenge (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh yes, it helps a lot! It's much appreciated. recently, I checked some of my own edits; it took me a lot of work to refind the exact page-numbers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jim. See also Talk:Yoga Sutras of Patanjali#Pātañjalayogaśāstra, the response by Wujastyk. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for the info. I'm surprised that about 3 people who have edited FG or organ harvesting info recently are allowed to edit those topics. In my experience on those articles an experienced editors behavior can be demonstrated by one disruptive edit, because they repeat the behavior.Aaabbb11 (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, you gave me quite some homework to do! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, when I took a closer look at Dhyana, I realized that about 14 inline-references (books) give no page numbers. I have seen similar problems in several other artices, like Samadhi. Best regards, JimRenge (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's okay, you're right. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume, you know the Bronkhorst and Vetter books very well, so it shouldn´t be too difficult to supplement the page numbers. JimRenge (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good enough to find them back; I will provide the page-numbers (though not right-away today). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi jim Renge. I don't know why I failed to edit article, I notice you keep undo my article. I also wondering where you from and who are you? Can you please write clearly more about where he was born and how was his childhood. Thanks http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntalkha (talk • contribs) 06:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edits regarding the Buddha´s birthplace were reverted by several users [16], [17], POV fork. If you wish to change the text about Budddhas birthplace, you should stop the edit war and discuss your proposals at the talk page of Gautama Buddha. JimRenge (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Dear JimjRenge. I am not sure who r u and where u from?

my question is, Where Buddha was born? And which country? I am rying to help for better Wikipedia for good place for people to find right information. Many people in the world they don't know where Buddha was born, Nepal or India?? Can you please edit so other people able to understanding and get information easily. I hope you understand what I mean. thanks

we all know Buddha, He is believed to have lived and taught mostly in eastern India sometime between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE.[4][note 5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntalkha (talk • contribs) 11:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take your time to read the article Gautama Buddha. It answers your question. The sutras tell us (this may be a legend or a fact) he was born in Lumbini garden (the Shakya republik). Nepal did not exist at that time!

There have been endless disputes about the need to mention Nepal repeatedly. If you wish to change the WP:CONSENSUS about Buddhas birthplace, you might try that at the talk page of Gautama Buddha. JimRenge (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes, but I am uncertified. Your info in Wikipedia is hard to understand for reader. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntalkha (talk • contribs) 09:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to say that Buddha was born to Nepalese social group of Shakya rulers. Buddha was never an Indian Person. He went to achieve knowledge only and taught there. Buddha is a Nepalese Heritage and one of the 13 enlisted National Heroes of Nepal. All India Medias are hyping the birthplace of Buddha inside India which unfair as it is located in Rupandehi District, Lumbini Sanskritik Municipality. His Capital is located in Kapilvastu District, Tilaurakot. Both his Birthplace and Capital is inside Nepal. The 100 Rupee Note by Nepal Rastra Bank is the Promissory by the Govt. of Nepal as the Birthplace of Buddha is in Nepal. And the main evidence is the Ashoka pillar which says that Buddha Shakyamuni was born here. So I have 2-3 evidences to prove the birthplace of Buddha. I would like to request you to not to support the Indian Media's Hyping of the Birthplace of Budhha. It is simply unacceptable and unapologetic. Thapa Kazi999 (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not aware of a wp article which states that Gautama Buddha was born in India. JimRenge (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what is the problem?, there are a reference, i look this source in the same page in the wikipedia in spanish. [18].--France et Europea (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@France et Europea: With this edit, you substituted reliably sourced statistical data (PewForum 2014) with de facto unsourced data (El Tiempo «l Papa está preocupado por penetración de pentecostales en Colombia). The citation, a newspaper article lacked identifiers/date, author (Please see WP:CITE). I found out that the cited article does not support the numbers you have added.

WP:VERIFY states: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." We expect you to check if the citation clearly supports the material as presented in the article.

In other articles, like Religion in Chile and Religion in Guatemala, you substituted current statistics with older ones. I have reverted these edits. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, in the articule <<el papa esta preocupado por la penetracion pentecostal en Colombia>> the data are of verificlable source, Latinobarometro (the religions in the time of the pope Franciso)--France et Europea (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sir, with all due respect it deserves, could please now leave me alone, I replied in the discussions of the pages and your discussion and I got tired of your useless messages, and I do not want more of your responses, this is my last comment--France et Europea (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see [19]. JimRenge (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Again, I saw that, why do you put a rose in this place?--France et Europea (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like flowers. JimRenge (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ELreydeEspana

See also User talk:User talk:Msundqvist#Gautama Buddha and User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Gautama Buddha Feedback, for an interesting contradiction I just noticed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the next step for that editor if the article about Lee Kwan Yu being a bodhisattva, complete with miscited sources, is deleted as a hoax? They were spidering it onto other pages as well. Ogress _smash! 18:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check all his edits, and give him a very strong warning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also have a look at his userpage, which he blanked. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They don't seem to make a lot of sense on that userpage nor in their reply to my tagging Sabhaktikamanuruddha as having peacock terms on the talk page. Ogress _smash! 20:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct. So, let's try to respond with compassion; he may need it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compassion does not mean we can have an editor making nonsensical edits or creating hoaxes. Compassion might mean banning them. Ogress _smash! 21:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, it is rather difficult to discuss with this editor [20]. It is also irritating that he is adamant in not signing his talk page contributions [21].

I have to admit that I am not as compassionate as Joshua. WP:HOAX says: "Hoaxes in Wikipedia are considered vandalism, and persistent perpetrators of hoaxes are subject to blocking and banning." If the article about Lee Kwan Yu being a bodhisattva, is deleted as a hoax, I would support a proposal for a block.

It might also be helpful to make consequent use of info/warning templates if he continues to violate wp policies. JimRenge (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just mean that this editor may have some serious mental problems, and that we can try to give our "feedback" in a friendly way, even if this includes a ban-proposal. It does not mean that someone can create hoax-articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never said I don't have a mental problem, in fact, I kept suggesting that you may have that too Jim and all. 林榮祥 09:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of which... Lam is spamming HOAX on Buddhism pages using a sock. Ogress _smash! 10:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took it to ANI. Feel free to comment there. JimRenge (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quickly solved, thanks to Yunshui. JimRenge (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ogress, more of this: [22], with [23] trying to use Speedy deletion Wiki as a source. :) JimRenge (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ronggy I filed a sockpuppet report. Ogress 17:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

God, that image was just heinous, and it was especially bad given that Kṣitigarbha art is especially restrained even in Chinese folk religion. Ogress _smash! 16:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this was an awful picture. JimRenge (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am new to this and all copyright violation was unintended. This was a stub and I tried to make it into a article. What you could have done was give me a warning and some time to fix the copyright issues instead of deleting the whole edit. How can geographical features and other noted items be copyrighted? If you had given me time I could have fixed this. This is the article on the largest Island in Bangladesh with a population of over 1.6 million people and it has nothing. Anyways you were correct, my edit may have violated copyrights, live and learn, I apologize on that account will try to ensure future edits don't violate wikipedia policy. with regards (Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinegarymass911 (talk • contribs)

Okay I nominated for deletion this terrible article Buddhist Brâhmans, you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist Brâhmans to weigh in, as I understand it. What a truly terrible idea for an article. It's wrong on so many levels I don't know how to start: brahman isn't a discrete category, we're talking thousands of years and many different cultures, it's unclear that the individuals cited as "brahmans" were so or that they meant what brahman does now; it's literally a glorified list of anyone who has had the word "brahman" attached to them who is affiliated with Buddhism. Ogress _smash! 19:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is also a discussion at ANI about the account. JimRenge (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Created by a confirmed sock of Buddhakahika. JimRenge (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was recreated as Buddhist Bråhmans. I have tagged it for speedy deletion + SPI. JimRenge (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I put two block notices one because the user was blocked for disruptive editing, and another later on because the user had been blocked again for edit warring, how is putting block notices when a user is blocked mis–leading? TeaLover1996 (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have answered your question on your talk page. JimRenge (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am Lakshmi. You had left a message for editing the Tathata page. Your point was it was not neutral for Buddhism Concepts. Well, I accept. But what i had edited about the living sage was neutral and sourced in bonafide nature. So, now that we both are neutral in our own view, can you guide me to create a new page by the title " Sri Tathata" so that, the details of the living sage can be posted.Lakshmipb (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)LakshmipbReply[reply]

Hi, I reverted your edits to Tathatā‎ because your text about Sri Tathata does not fit there. This article is about a concept in Buddhism.

If you want to create a new article about Sri Tathata you should read [24] /section:I want to create a new article, WP:BLP, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV. Your text about Sri Tathata did not appear neutral and a new article about him would require reliable, independant, 3rd party sources (please see WP:RS). However, a quick Google search did not show any independant reliable source. Therefore I doubt that your plan is feasible. JimRenge (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	In appreciation of your tireless, long-standing work in monitoring a myriad of articles prone to subjective refactoring. Thank you so much for being one of the good 'uns Wikipedia (and I, personally) can count of for consistent WP:NPOV patrolling of contentious articles! Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iryna Harpy, thank you very much!  :) JimRenge (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your template has been removed as per WP:G5. Article was created "before" ban or block on 28 November 2014 and user has been blocked since 25 December 2014. This article does not qualify. Cheers! Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's nice to learn about monkeys. And cappuccinos. Ogress _smash! 20:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hoped you might have moved the talapoy to some article that is not on my watchlist. JimRenge (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unrelatedly, does it not seem like our wikilives are comprised of 10% edits, 90% sockpuppet issues? Seriously. Seriously. Ogress _smash! 20:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, socking is a plague. JimRenge (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

90%? You've got to do more editing, to balance the numbers! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings! How are you JimRenge? I was wondering if you could have a look at the Cao Đài article? I changed the citation style to follow the ((sfn)) format,[25] but I am still having some trouble with some of the refs not working. I'll divide my problems into two smaller sub-groups in order to make commenting easier :-)

1. No idea why not working:
   1. Eller 2007: This is the ref number 7. The reference at Cao Đài#Sources correctly includes both the surname (Eller) and the year (2014).
   2. Tam 2000: This is the ref number 15. The same problem as above. I just can't figure it out why these two ain't working. =F

1. Parameter issues perhaps:
   1. VietnamGear.com: Ref number 11. This might be a parameter issue. The source is a bit challenging since there's not really that much information out there (not even the authors), so pertaining to publisher= instead of last= might cause it not to work. Should I just insert the "VietnamGear.com" to the place of last=, or...?
   2. Hộ-Pháp Phạm Công Tắc: Ref number 28. The same as above, but this one is using the "author=" parameter instead of "last=". This one doesn't succeed in linking to the References section even.
   3. Sydney Centre for Studies in Caodaism (a/b/c/d/e/f): The same as above. All of these use the parameter "website=" instead of "last=". (These ones do succeed in linking to the References section though.

Any ideas how to fix the problems? :-O Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See [26] and [27] for docu. One possibility to avoid problems with web citations is a separate "online refs" list as in Buddha.

A)Solved: I have changed cite news, cite web, cite book etc. to Citation.

B) Hộ-Pháp Phạm Công Tắc: Ref number 28 seems fine. I have no idea about the rest.

JimRenge (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, JimRenge. I also think that if we could use the |year=, |month=, and |day= parameters within the citation template instead of ((Citation | date= YYYY-MM-DD)) format, it might do the trick as well. Currently, the only non-functioning part seems to be ((para|day)), which leaves an ugly error message at the end of the reference:

Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help)

Well, I don't know that much about the code but I've asked asked user Ohconfucius[28] if he could get it fixed :-) Meanwhile, gotta start learning the use of "online refs" xP Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Busybody sticking their nose in comment without reading whole thread, "invisible Unicode characters" can cause cite errors. I recently had a date error that I couldn't fix "check date in |date=" or similar, and a BOT soon came along and apparently removed something I couldn't even see! 220 of ^Borg 01:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for you reply 220! Did you use the ((Citation | date= YYYY-MM-DD)), or the ((Citation | ... | year =... | month =(in letters)... | day =...)) citation style? I had the former one installed ever since the last January, and I get no error messages with that ever so far. However, the references don't quite work when pertaining to journals since journals comprise three parameters (day, month and year). That's why I'd like to use the latter one, but that one gives a date error.

Anyway, following your advice I re-installed the latter one[29] at the Michele Moramarco article. Please have a look if you like! I am having it there despite the date error in hope that the bot will fix it :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jayaguru-Shishya: I think I've located (or at least seen again) where the bot fixed the error, if so (and I can find it again) I'll post a lk for you. As I often/usually use the cite tool on the edit tool bar, it's in the format "Date=" which can be YMD, DMY or MYD. (which is the first format you mentioned) There are silly errors like a missing space that may not be obvious i.e. "20July 2015", or maybe "2015–07-20" (1 wrong dash)"2015–07−20" (2 wrong dashes). 220 of ^Borg 01:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yep, I found it at Full disclosure (computer security). This version, [30] has an error "Check date values in: |date= (help)" at ref № 1, check the next diff, [31] by User:MenoBot. 220 of ^Borg 02:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the link, 220! My poor old eyes, though, still can't catch the difference between the two versions[32] :O In addition to the "Month YYYY" format in the link you gave me, I'd actually need to use the "day=" parameter as well, but that one doesn't seem to work... Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the thanks. I see you are involved on religion related pages, brave! I've edited the odd temple page IIRC. I presume that is where you came across the editors in question that I left a 'few' information and warning templates for?

I try to stay away but via new page patrolling I often get involved in Indian, and nearby areas, BLPs, villages \towns \cities etc (where they don't seem to know the differences), and movie pages where NPOV disappears, flowery peacock phraseology abounds and everyones favourite film is a "blockbuster" . Not to mention almost Random capitalisation,And Poor , punctuation.

Happy second Wiki-birthday for last month. I'm coming up on 6 years, though first 26 months were IP edits. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 02:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@220 of Borg, when I decided to add exactly the same templates to their talk page, I was surprised to see that you did it some minutes earlier. Yes, the Indian and neighboring areas are special. There is much dispute about caste related topics.

Thanks for the Wiki-birthday greetings, I did not notice that I am editing for 2 years now. 6 years, I hope you will continue to enjoy it. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I report canvassing, exactly? I found myself at odds with Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs), who has 650 edits to Wikimedia projects in total, and they spammed thirty users' pages with a premade alert pointing to the page Dandamis. They are POV pushing hard on Jainism, even adding Template:Jainism topics to Gautama Buddha, and I feel like I'm about to get hammered. Ogress _smash! 17:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As already told you, I am relatively new to wikipedia and accepted the reverts you made. I learned today how to sign my comments and also the fact that there is a user talk page policy as well. Even then, if you are unhappy, its your wish what you want to do. -- Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a way you tell new people like SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) did. I respect and thank him for that. Not going mad at'em like you just because you have the extra power of experience. You must have referred to my talk page first. Whatever was my error, I never hesitated to accept it. But I seriously think Wikipedia should also have a policy for people like you, who are so strongly motivated to defame newcomers. -- Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 17:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have stated I am censoring you, defaming you and many other strong words. I am not doing anything of the sort. You say you are a newcomer but you have 650 edits and are making elaborate syntax changes to pages. You have also sicced 30 Jain users on our conversation at Dandamis and have strongly pushed your personal point of view on many pages. As I wrote on at least two pages' discussions, we welcome your enthusiasm but you really need to visit the Teahouse and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia because you are stepping on an epic level of toes. Ogress _smash! 17:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ogress, you might report this at ANI if he continues canvassing after being informed/warned. JimRenge (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for informing me that it was a misleading link. I checked it and found that you are correct. You deserve appreciation. Best regards Terabar (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The editor has done good work improving it, but is a single-purpose account and I think may turn out to be quite intransigent as they are religiously-motivated. I could use another viewpoint about that page as it's got the hagiographical smell. Ogress _smash! 19:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)##Reply[reply]

It was much worse in May. I had tagged it [33] [34] with POV and third-party but when he removed the tags [35] and issued this strange statement at the talk page I thought: these guys eat only once a day, I feel sympathy for a buddhist group focused on practice and I am not in the mood for dispute.

I believe that the main editors of this article are adherents of the Thai Forest Tradition who do not realize that wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia. You are right: it's got the hagiographical smell. JimRenge (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean I can't lie, they definitely radically improved the article. If anything, it is less hagiographical because they have used solid sources to (mostly) write accurate information where before there was pure hagiography; still, reading it is a bit like being pitched the faith.

As a Buddhist, it's definitely offputting. There's a lot of purity-words: it's earliest Buddhism reborn, the theras (can we talk about moving that page from thero to thera?) reached the Noble Attainment, purifying the tradition: it's your basic fundamentalism. And they totally neglect criticism: for example, the Forest Tradition is not all about reviving early Buddhism when it comes to women. Theravada monks and abbots who have participated in the upasampada of women outside of Thailand (where it is not permitted by the Sangharaja, so could not happen there for reason of national law) has lead to expulsion of both groups from the order entirely. There are brave women maechi who insist they are TFT - Meeting Faith: The Forest Journals of a Black Buddhist Nun is the story of an American woman who practiced as a TFT maechi - but overall it's a sausage-fest of misogyny. Ogress _smash! 21:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW this was a really interesting read. Adielé, Faith (2004). Meeting Faith: The Forest Journals of a Black Buddhist Nun. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-05784-3. ((cite book)): Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Have you considered taking a cleanup pass at TFT? I could use another pair of eyes. Also, do you think the cites on Thanissaro are reliable enough? I'm working on paper sources rn but I'm not probably going to find a better source for his letter in the books I have access to, and it had a rather significant effect on the Theravadin community. Ogress _smash! 16:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ogress: Sorry to be late. TFT: I have corrected some details. I am not sure if the narratives/quotes in the sections "Respect Among the Mainstream", "The Tradition in the West/England" and "Practices/Recitation of the mantra buddho" comply with the encyclopedic style.

The sources on Thanissaro are questionable, not independant and/or WP:SPS. I believe the article needs reliable, independant, secondary sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). His letter: Sometimes (criteria in WP:SELFSOURCE) SPS may be used as sources of information about themselves if there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. JimRenge (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Thai Forest Tradition editor is deleting things at Thanissaro Bhikkhu's page, and I don't trust him on neutrality issues as far as I can throw him. Ogress 07:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your revert at Religion in New Zealand of what looks like vandalism. You beat me by about 1minute! Akld guy (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking it to ANI. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your message about my recent edits (Bodhidaruma and Zhong Kui). I've finally signed up as a Wiki user! I'm an academic specializing in Japanese art history. My apologies that I haven't mastered the Wiki conventions yet. Best regards, From Kenwyn74 (talk) Kenwyn74 (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen." Sorry that it happened to you with one of your first edits. You don´t need to know all the wikipedia conventions right from the start. Just cite reliable sources when you add text, facts etc.  :) Best regards JimRenge (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But sometimes it isn't worth providing 'reliable sources'. In one instance I was simply entering an artist's name in full. I guess in those cases the problem is unavoidable... From Kenwyn74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accidentally hit the rollback buttonVictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. JimRenge (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello JimRenge: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use ((subst:Season's Greetings)) to send this message

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello JimRenge: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Season's Greetings)) to send this message

Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jim, I saw that you are interested in articles about Buddhism and I need help with an issue. An IP is making disruptive edits in Buddhism and violence, I tried to talk with the user in the talk page but s/he doesn't engage there. I'm semi retired and I can't maintain a discussion right now. Could you give it a check or give me your opinion? if is not much trouble to you. Thanks in advance. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On you comments on why you reverted: yes, thanks, its basically ridden with false accusations based on discredited old sources, I will not check on each of the story, as we must rectify this. I am alo debating with another reverter, on the subject of what reliable sources are and necessity to fact-check and exercise common sense, not just Wiki policies. Now, think, a youngster as young as 13 gets recruited by the KGB etc, plane hijacked, stuff like this. True, many people published stuff like that, but this all does not stand up to scrutiny. People insist that what they years ago reinstalled is properly attributed, yet this very stuff decade ago I was struggling to remove in the early stage of this article, there are multiple rants of mine of that period. I know that stuff. In the interest of full disclosure, about 20 years ago, I also participated in that group activities and from the time of their dissolution here I cross-check many of what is written on them in the media. I know this stuff, there is no any conflict of interest cause I do not work for them. You see, same countercultist and China-affiliated editors in Russia (I assume you dont read Rusian) have succeeded in smearing the Dalai-Lama with Chinese sources, like he is somehow a terrorist supporter, who planned some pan-Asian revolution etc. They all revert quoting Wiki policies saying their sources are reputable: premier state paper Chinese and tabloid European. Let us not allow them do it here, problem with the sources, sources are flawed. Ok, just for plane (again as I am saying better trust me to remove all this, but if you insist) "The Japanese broadcast network NHK said the hijacker denied saying he is a follower of the Aum Shinri Kyo sect and said his only demand is to fly the plane back to Tokyo. "http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Cult-link-unclear-in-hijack-of-Japan-plane-3143553.php

Now in article Aum member hijacks the plane and demands release of Asahara (1995 newspaper article as source, later disproved by authorities when asked if true). Why? Media printed made up stuff to make a sensation. People find it on google and put it in. I.e. let us do not revert meaningful edits for formal reasons. On this particular one, explained in talks for sources (where wuthorities disprove paper's claim, thus paragraph removed).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Kozharov (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for today, the edit I performed stands, no reverts. Thank you. Could you help in another matter? On Russian wiki in the article on Aum Shinrikyo (no, I am not actually 'involved with the organization', this particular one) article claims, with source for such claim the newspaper article (1995) that the group is "in terrorist organizations list" in Russia. Now, I know it is not and checked with reliable source, a government body that maintains such lists, the FSB (Federal Security Service, formerly the KGB). Admins lecture me on how this is irrelevant, and before I requested mediation did not engage in Talks even, but appealed to Administrators with request to block me. Now, as to the edit, removal of the word 'Russia' in passage on 'on terrorist orgs list', continue to appear as if they do not understand me and saying I "do not understand" and avoid discussion, which the mediators suggested we have, in talks. Yet on own Talk pages both these several people discussed me in words like "hey, thats our old mate", "i suggest permanent block, so that not to torture cats" and "nothing will turn out of him IMO"... I have the impression that they are active opponents of minority religious groups and dissenters of any form, and to them I am 'defending the cult'. They also referred the admins to Warning I recently got in the US wiki, seems to be of importance in Russia, and issued me 3 warnings etc. In English wiki the matter is resolved, but the Russian continue to defend what amounts to a very bad quality article, which however seem incidentally has tons of links and which has even grammar and style-related unresolved problems. Could you look in the matter? And discuss the issue as what counts as primary source? I am only editor, not admin, without external input they will block me Yuri Kozharov (talk • contribs —Preceding undated comment added 04:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yuri Kozharov, I do not speak Russian and I can not help you with articles or conflicts at the Russian wikipedia. It appears to me that your knowledge of wikipedia policies and guidelines (such as WP:NOT, WP:COI, WP:BRD, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV,WP:OR, WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:UNDUE)is very limited and as a wp beginner it may be a good idea to avoid the "minefields" of contentious articles like Aum shinrikyo, David Irving etc. Please read WP:TALK and consider to visit the wp:teahouse if you need help. JimRenge (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	The Buddha, over and over and over again. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings! I hope everything's going really nice with you! Thanks for adding these two sources[36] at the Yamantaka article recently, I think decent sources are more than welcome there. I was wondering, though, could you add some inline citations to point out which material at the article the two sources actually verify? :-P

I guess you also must have noticed that I nominated the article for deletion[37] almost an week ago. I must tell you that it was actually my first AfD nomination ever, and I did that for the article being completely unreferenced. I never meant to imply that the topic would not be notable as such, but I was thinking that even a well-notable topic would not pass the article creation process unless it is properly referenced. I also think that it'd be easier to rewrite the whole thing instead of hunting references for the existing unreferenced additions, that might not even hold true in all cases.

Anyway, I was thinking of withdrawing the nomination as some source have been provided now, thanks to you. As WP:WDAFD puts it: "If [...] you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it. This might be because the discussion has produced new information about the topic ...."

What do you think? Could you provide some inline references? :-P Cheers and splendid weekend! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jayaguru-Shishya, I am generally not very interested in Tibetan Buddhism, I saw this because I have the Buddhism Afd´s on my watchlist. I just wondered if the topic is notable, checked the databases, compared the content with Buswell, and added 2 sources in the further reading section, hoping someone else :) might be motivated to work on this. I can mail you Buswell´s article if you are interested. I think the topic is notable and I don´t expect it will be deleted. Cheers JimRenge (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawn![38] :-) This was my first experiment with the AfD, but I do have some others in my list (User talk:Cullen328#Saints of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica). I am sure these make a much more clear case! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, JimRenge! Would you mind if I removed the two books you added, and replaced the ((refimprove)) template with a ((unreferenced)) one instead? I was intending to ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism, and I am afraid that the sources might give a false impression that they already cover the material to some extent. In reality, all the material in the article is currently unreferenced. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, no need anymore![39] Always a pleasure to work with you! ;-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Jim,

Everyone believe and there are many evidence that the pure Buddha's teaching is the Pāli Canon. Please study the history of Pāli Canon. Any thing doesn't match with the Pāli Canon should not pure Buddhism. Lord Buddha has teach in the Pāli Canon, we have a way to check whether something is a Buddhas word. Match anything with his pure words, if anything doesn't match with it is not a Buddhs's word. So, Mahayana Buddhism is not a teaching of the Buddha. Buddha's never tell to stay in the cycle of rebirth, Please study Lord Buddah's final word. They never magnify the Smasara even a little bit.

What I want to tell you is Mahayana is a derived version of the pure Buddhism. Many Buddhist in the world not following pure Buddhas word what a sad thing. So, please revert my change. It will help many people to understand what is the Buddhism is. I think it is better to maintain separate page for Mahayana.

We pure Buddhist believe that the creator of Mahayana Buddhism should be in a hell, since he created a schism within the pure Buddhism while changing the ultimate reality(Dharma) and prevented many beings reaching eternal happiness Nirvana. It is one of the five Anantarika-karma.

Thanks for your great effort to maintaining the Buddhism page while distributing the true. You may receive many merits in the cycle of rebirth.

Regards, Muditha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudithachampika (talk • contribs) 11:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for moving your comment to the Buddhism talk page. I have replied there. JimRenge (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear JimRenge, I did all of my edits according to the Pali Canon. I think you are reverting all of my edits without reading any references. Finally realize what is Wikipedia is. Any way you can't revert all of my edits since even I can't remember edits done by me. Some edit may have done at even in 2005 with many Japanese IPs. Any way I will continue correcting Wikipedia Buddhism pages according to the Pali Canon. If you don't like it please ask to block my account. Then I will correct without any logging. You can only stop me correcting Wikipedia Buddhism pages by putting Wikipedia as non-editable to public. Please distribute the truth. Thanks, Muditha --Mudithachampika (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Talk:Buddhism, Rajagaha where first Buddhist council was held was capital of Magadha Kingdom, Bodhgaya where Buddha attained enlightenment was in Magadha Kingdom, Sarnath where Buddha gave his first sermon was in Magadha Kingdom, Pali was synonymous with Magadhi Prakrit. This is pretty common knowledge, Buddhism is associated with Magadha Kingdom. Pebble101 (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Answered at Talk:Buddhism to keep it in one place. JimRenge (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken time to check your actions and claims at the article. You recently restored Ms Sarah Welch's version and cited the reason "No consensus to restore edit by KahnJohn27". Please note that there is no such requirement, not as far as I know anyway. Additionally the blocked user made the edit before being blocked, there is no rule that says that edits made before block can be freely removed. Thus the reason given for removing this edit before was therefore wrong as it wasn't a disruptive edit and was made before the block. In addition, you have ignored that most recent version on the article was actually an edited version of blocked editors' edits. Not only that you choose to instead revert to Ms Sarah Welch's version even though just like me her edit is an edited version of the blocked editors' edits and she doesn't have any consensus as well. If you do want there to be a status quo, then you shouldn't be re-adding any single person's versions of edits. I've seen this page has already had many reverts and the last thing it requires is another revert. If it is reverted again by anyone then I'll request the admins to have the page locked. Please discuss at talk page if you have any instead of reverting. AkhtarHussain83 (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see [40] and my comment on Talk:Guru Arjan. JimRenge (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, thanks for the message on my talk.

Can you also please check the following for the same violation in the same article :

There is no reference/citation provided for the claims made below which are disputable (listed as per subsection) :

Writings : "The only work that all scholars agree is Nagarjuna's is the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way), which contains the essentials of his thought in twenty-seven chapters".

"There is an ongoing, lively controversy over which of those works are authentic. Contemporary research suggest that these works belong to a significantly later period, either to late 8th or early 9th century CE, and hence can not be authentic works of Nāgārjuna".

Philosophy : "If the most commonly accepted attribution of texts (that of Christian Lindtner) holds, then he was clearly a Māhayānist, but his philosophy holds assiduously to the Śrāvaka Tripiṭaka, and while he does make explicit references to Mahāyāna texts, he is always careful to stay within the parameters set out by the Śrāvaka canon".

Shunyata : "For Nāgārjuna, as for the Buddha in the early texts, it is not merely sentient beings that are "selfless" or non-substantial; all phenomena (dhammas) are without any svabhāva, literally "own-being", "self-nature", or "inherent existence" and thus without any underlying essence. They are empty of being independently existent; thus the heterodox theories of svabhāva circulating at the time were refuted on the basis of the doctrines of early Buddhism. This is so because all things arise always dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their coming into existence, as opposed to being".

"Understanding the nature of the emptiness of phenomena is simply a means to an end, which is nirvana. Thus Nagarjuna's philosophical project is ultimately a soteriological one meant to correct our everyday cognitive processes which mistakenly posits svabhāva on the flow of experience".

With regard to the request of removing original research, thanks for the feedback, but the system of the three nimittas can actually be traced back to Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga, that is in pp.124-125 in the fifth edition of the BPS (Pali page 125-126). I did not intend to claim the detail of the technique of Dhammakaya can all be found in the Visuddhimagga though. So i am rephrasing my statement, but not removing it.S Khemadhammo (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a coincidence! I was bound for the Talk Page for the very same issue! :-) Anyway, only recently I noticed that you removed the Buddhaghosa source for original research.[41] I intended to improve the reference by providing a direct URL to the source,[42] but I wasn't making any statement for or against the OR issue. Actually, I checked the source and noticed that it failed to verify the material it should have supported[43].

I haven't removed the material yet for failing to verify; just tagged. What do you think about the OR issue? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps the wrong page no. S Khemadhammo, could you please check this? JimRenge (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, i am on it, JimRenge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S Khemadhammo (talk • contribs) 21:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

S Khemadhammo, please add the page no in this edition. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Splendid! Now gentlemen, let's take any further discussion to Talk:Dhammakaya meditation, shall we? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. JimRenge (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Glad you're watching! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HI, I appreciate the efforts put in to keep this a valuable resource. I have gone through the page suggested by you an it is very difficult for me to say what is reliable or not as it practically covers everything. In order for me to understand more clearly about this would it be possible for you to mention the reasons why is not a reliable source. Also I found one more site I would like your opinion on http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Ordination_of_women Thanks in advance. Mcolombowala Mcolombowala (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally self-published sources like http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Ordination_of_women or wikis, such as wikiwand or wikipedia are not acceptable (see WP:USERGENERATED and WP:SPS). There are a lot of websites and even books which are based on wikipedia and are not regarded as reliable sources per WP:CIRCULAR. Google scholar and Google books can help you to identify reliable sources (but not all sources you see there will be reliable!). I recommend the Wikipedia:Teahouse if you have more questions about wikipedia or need help. JimRenge (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just so you know, since you are new here, harassment and stalking will get you banned. This will be your ONLY warning!DEUTSCHBLUT (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit looks like a personal attack. Please see WP:HA#NOT, my info template on you talk page [44] is no "harassment and stalking". Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. JimRenge (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ogress: maybe you can advice our German friend on English spelling? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wouldn't dare call him German. Ogress 23:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: Please delete entire Life of Buddha section in Buddhism articleVictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No Buddhism without a Buddha. A short introduction of the Buddha might be useful. JimRenge (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@VictoriaGrayson: it's an interesting proposal, given the fact (...) that his "biography" cannot be considered to be a factual account. But, as Paul Williams noted in his 2012 edition of "Buddhist thought," it does have a pedagogical function, and cannot be dismissed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: Move the info from Buddhism to the article Gautama Buddha.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JJ/@JR: @Vic is pointing us in the right direction, though I agree a brief introduction is useful and necessary, for pedagogical reasons. Perhaps the "Life of Buddha" section should be trimmed to ~25-40% of what it is now, and linked to the main article. Astrologer visit etc need surgery, unsourced text need some rethought/ deletion/ moved into notes after the addition of RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lets move this discussion to the article's talk page, so others can offer suggestions and other views, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, the articles talk page is the right place for this discussion. I have copied it to Talk:Buddhism. JimRenge (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JimRenge, I agree with your edits on the Gohonzon article. For the record, I did not write those sections. I was the one who added ^{[citation needed]} tags. As you know there are 3 disruptive editors on this article (although they may be the same person). They refuse to refuse to participate in Talk page discussions, make hit-and-edits, and have quick-trigger reverts without comments. I've placed concerns on their Talk pages. BrandenburgG (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for looking over Buziatov (talk · contribs)'s edits. I've been doing the same while trying to get the editor's attention. My take on these links and references is that any deliberate spamming, if it exists, is obscured by good-faith contributions. Berzin appears to be a respected translator. I'm not sure if Berzin's own perspectives, beyond translation, should be used and if so under what circumstances. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume he may have a COI. He has stopped adding new links to Berzins website and his corrections of existant links are no problem. I have checked some articles (buddhist terms) and found out that the links to/refs to Berzin were initially added by Dorje108 who does not appear to be related to Berzins website. I agree, Berzin is notable but I think his self-published texts should be used with caution. JimRenge (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do work for Berzin, but after you notified me and reverted my addings, I stopped to add new links to the Wiki. However, I need to change all the existing links that lead to www.berzinarchives.com to studybuddhism.com, because the website is now in the process of moving and rebranding. At some point the old website will be completely closed and all the links will get broken. But if on the top of that you would not mind adding other Dr. Berzin's articles on some topics related to Buddhism -- for instance, on Buddhist ethics, different "mental factors" -- overviews how emotions work and how to deal with them, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krodha_(Mental_factor), -- it might contribute Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buziatov (talk • contribs) 08:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for responding.

My take on the situation:

Updating existing links should be fine.

As you have a conflict of interest, don't add any new links but rather propose their addition on the article talk page.

Berzin's translations appear to be very useful sources. Other links should be discussed, and I expect it would be difficult to make a case for their inclusion - specifically using his other works as sources and anything from studybuddhism.com in External links sections. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll defer to JimRenge the appropriateness of Berzin's works as sources if there's disagreement. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Just want to mention again that now all works by Dr. Berzin (including translations!) will be located at studybuddhism.com rather than on www.berzinarchives.com, it is just a rebranding and not two different websites managed by two different teams. Finally, www.berzinarchives.com will be closed. In any case, i will not add anything new, only might propose to add things via talk page, as you said. Buziatov (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not the case. You are adding new links and new information. Please take more care. --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ronz, I have used WikiBlame to check 15 additional articles and found no evidence of organized addition of www.berzinarchives.com. JimRenge (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am retired historian, archaeologist (State Department of Archaeology and museums, Telangana, India) and Buddhist scholar from Hyderabad, India. The information that I added is newly discovered (just last year) after the newly formed Telangana state government took the massive effort excavating and restoring the Phanigiri site, which has been lost for last 1800 years. Google for Phanigiri and you should see State Government video’s of the excavation, restoration effort and discoveries (in Telugu language mostly).This discoveries are a joint effort by State Government of Telangana, Central Government of India and Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Also it is widely know Nāgārjuna in indian literature that Nāgārjuna was not his real name but given name at the hill of snakes (which is Phanigri), this information is NOT new. I am not good with computers and I do not know how to get the links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3701:3E20:3DDC:3305:9294:B586 (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Answered here. JimRenge (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure it was an error of some kind but in this edit you altered Ms Sarah Welch's comment changing the word "mention" to the nonsensical "mentthision". Dharmalion76 (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! It was a touchpad related error. JimRenge (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Between those and autocorrect, I am starting to really dislike modern technology. :) Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With regard to your message on my page, I can disclose that I am not being paid for my edits whatsoever. I have a strong interest in Theravada Buddhism, and have written about a variety of subjects in Theravada Buddhism, on websites and also starting now on Wikipedia. If you need my help with any other subjects in Theravada Buddhism apart from the Dhammakaya Tradition, you can let me know, as I have already mentioned in the Wikiproject of Buddhism.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Answered on your talk page to keep the discussion in one place. JimRenge (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Luang Por Dhammajayo and Luang Por Dattajivo—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. S Khemadhammo (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--S Khemadhammo (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Jim. I think User:Vikamgz is talking to you, rather than me, on their page. Just saying — I don't think there's any great need for you to respond, unless you want to. Thanks for reverting the article. I was racing you for it, but I'm slow. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]

The idea that Jesus/AJ should better explain the Divine Truth directly to our readers makes me smile ...

Thanks for informing him about copyvios and WP:V. I have asked Diannaa to consider deleting the copy-pasted version. JimRenge (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I ask on what basis you're changing the dating scheme of the Greco-Buddhism article from BC to BCE? The article was begun and long stable as BC/AD, and as per WP:ERA there seems to be no substantial reason to change that. Russ3Z (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JimRenge. 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[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a)) to your friends' talk pages.

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Reply[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Zhudaosheng. Since you had some involvement with the Zhudaosheng redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No edit war, just reverting socks. See here. Thank me later. --92slim (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are probably right but he is not a CU confirmed sock. I see no result for this SPI. JimRenge (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you flesh out your objection to the Starbuck piece a bit? Anmccaff (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anmccaff, sorry, it was a mistake. I was in a hurry. Please add a full citation. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No prob. I added a cite from the Poetry Foundation; it's a little less scholarly that an cite back to the book, but a hellofalot more accessible. Will that work? Anmccaff (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, thank you! JimRenge (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am proposing a move of Buddhist apocrypha. You might want to weigh in.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the info. JimRenge (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you tagged me as Suspected sockpuppet??? For France I made the pie myself and I only wanted to change the color, for US I first edited the Pie and then changed the color of it, for Greece and Italy I simply adapted the color for the other pie! Leave me alone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankCesco26 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you tagged me as sockpuppet? I have nothing to do with the user Emanuelito Martinez! In fact I'm italian and he's spanish (I think from his name). You can't accusing me just because I changed the color of some pie chart that I made myself (for example France pie chart and USA pie chart)! Delete my name from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Emanuelito_martinez#Suspected_sockpuppets and leave me alone! I haven't done anything wrong to you or to community! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankCesco26 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have started a sockpuppet investigation because the two accounts appear to be controlled by the same person. JimRenge (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was notified about your concern. Today I simply poste dot the Talk page some historical facts with supporting linked documents at the Steven Alan Hassan Talk page. I am not editing, but rather suggesting edits that might be done based upon the reliable sources as documented. BTW -- A quote concerning Steve Hassan form a published book about cults edited by a clinical psychologist was also suggested previously, but never included in the bio.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your previous DS-alert expired in January 2017. Concerning your edit on Talk:Steven Hassan: I have written a comment on your talk page, where the discussion takes place. JimRenge (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your solution is elegant and your peace-keeping efforts are most welcome. :) JimRenge (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've given them a soft warning. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your edits are much appreciated. I think the violations of our NPOV policy in combination with the misrepresentation of sources are a serious problem. I am glad to see that you have the Lotus Sutra on your watchlist. JimRenge (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have seen a similar edit some time ago. JimRenge (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nepsis, theoria and henosis - spot the difference with Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If henosis is defined as "union with what is fundamental in reality", I see strong overlap with Buddhism because the Buddha is in union with the Dharma. JimRenge (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear JimRenge...can you please take the time to review my proposed edits to the Lotus Sutra article? It can be found in my sandbox, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrandenburgG/sandbox. I see this as a new section to the LS article which brings it current. Readers should not see the LS as just antiquarian studies but as a academic field that has been active since Burnouf and has an active heartbeat right now in terms of application. Thank you. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jim Renge, based on your suggestions I posted a revision of "Modern Scholarship and Outread" in the LS Talk Page. When you have time can you take a look at it and share feedback? Thank you BrandenburgG (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went ahead a posted "Modernist Interpretation and Internationalization." I want to research about Hurvitz and Ratzinger, possibly include later.BrandenburgG (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JimRenge, can you take a look at the Gohonzon talk page, the section on "Pious Beliefs..." I made a proposal to delete this section but I want some feedback. Thank you. BrandenburgG (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed this section per WP:OR. JimRenge (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, @JimRenge. I believe the article is substantially strong now. Can you review and offer suggestions? If you agree, can you remove the tags? Thanks again, BrandenburgG (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article gives WP:UNDUE weight to Nichiren Buddhism; it should be moved to Gohonzon (Nichiren Buddhism). We can discuss this on the corresponding talk page. JimRenge (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I responded on the article's talk page. A question about the two self-published sources which you removed. I understand restrictions on self-published work in the article itself. But is it also restricted on Further Reading? They happen to be unique and comprehensive works that also provides additional POV. A possible solution I can try: the (anonymous) authors also have a website that points to the books.BrandenburgG (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please take a look at the Honzon article. I was able to expand it slightly and add several sources although it is still probably in the stub category. The "see also" section points to the Gohonzon (Nichiren) so I think we can now let it stand alone and remove the redirect to Gohonzon. I would rather ask you to handle this editorial work since I have been involved in editing both articles.BrandenburgG (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See 'talk' page on Sangha. My edit was explained there hence it's not very appropiate to undo it without continuing discussion there. Erikdr (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Faith in Buddhism —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gave this editor some advice after your post to their talk page. See their response.[45] Doug Weller talk 08:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed, I have informed them about PA. JimRenge (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for showing some examples of some of the spamming that occurred this morning on some of the pages I am trying to watch. I spent about an hour trying to figure out how to revert the changes and provide useful and accurate feedback on why it was undone, and then voila, seems you did that! Appreciated seeing the verbiage for how to do that. Will be honest, as a relatively new editor, I was struggling with finding the "right" way to do that with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FULBERT (talk • contribs) 15:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about neglecting to sign the above!! Think I need a checklist for making sure not to forget!! FULBERT (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FULBERT, I am glad to hear that my explanations were helpful. The user has been blocked for spamming. JimRenge (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JimRenge Is there a shortcode you use to quickly gather those references to demonstrate those user comments were spam, or do you just keep a shortcut to where those guidelines are? I am somewhat process oriented, and want to see the best way to find them if needed again. Also to this point, how did that user get blocked? I saw you were not the one who blocked him/her; did you put a request for it or did somebody else just notice all the sudden changes or a bot or something like it? Just trying to understand how this works so I can help as needed and not get in the way of what is not needed. Thanks!! FULBERT (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FULBERT, the contributions of this user [46] were all sourced with books (or wordpress articles/blogs) by Timo Schmitz. I googled one of his books "Schmitz, Timo (2015). Rationalism versus Spiritualism and Atheism versus Polytheism in Buddhism," in attempt to identify the publisher and saw these results [47], [48], [49] (epubli a self-publishing platform). I took it to the "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism" [50], when the user continued to add his inappropriately sourced content/reference spam after receiving a final warning. JimRenge (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks JimRenge. I did not know about that Admin area to report these issues. Very helpful. Many thanks for the informal education about this! All the best! FULBERT (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want that title to be changed to Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and Not B R Ambekdar becasue the intial letter makes it look as B R A and it creates adult joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokcr1990 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have copied your cmt to the talk page of B. R. Ambedkar and answered there. JimRenge (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am saying because when you open multiple tab the name only shows initials or first letter of the word that B. R .A full name is Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar Either it should be Bhimrao Ambedkar or make it full Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar dont keep it that as B R Ambedkar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokcr1990 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe you shouldn't open multiple tabs, if your mind is that easily distracted... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please helping write Udumbra by Falun Gong from sources : [51] [52]

Base Buddhism's book and [53] then Udumbra (by Falun Gong) is Chrysopidae eggs and photoshop. See more, or translate from in [54]

Thank you very much. Nguyenquocminhminh (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I am not interested in Falun Gong related articles/topics. JimRenge (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nguyenquocminhminh, perhaps it may help you to read our Wikipedia:Fringe theories and reliable sources (WP:BURDEN and WP:RS). Falun Gong is a disputed topic at the English wikipedia and administrators may show little patience (DS decision, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions). I have found only one English source which may be reliable: Ryan Bongseok Joo, Materializing a buddhist symbol of rarity: recent appearance of the udumbara flower, Material Religion, The Journal of Objects, Art and Belief, Volume 7, 2011 - Issue 2. This is also available here. JimRenge (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much. I am not engough english to write a paper by english to send to a jounal. But please see some link as follows:

1, Udumbra by Falun Gong by google search: https://www.google.com.vn/search?q=Hoa+%C6%AFu+%C4%90%C3%A0m&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA7Jq-qdnVAhUlT48KHaIuCAAQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=659

2, Chrysopidae eggs by google search: https://www.google.com.vn/search?biw=1366&bih=659&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Chrysopidae+eggs&oq=Chrysopidae+eggs&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0.95847.95847.0.96828.1.1.0.0.0.0.125.125.0j1.1.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.125.AXhnvqviPZs

3, Some paper in Viet Nam: http://phatgiao.org.vn/y-kien/201412/Truyen-thuyet-Phat-giao-ve-hoa-uu-dam-linh-thieng-da-bi-lai-theo-muc-dich-rieng-16477/

4, http://phatgiao.org.vn/y-kien/201708/Hoa-uu-dam-su-lua-dao-cua-ta-dao-Phap-Luan-Cong-P-2-27957/

5, https://thuvienhoasen.org/a26920/to-chuc-phap-luan-cong-xuyen-tac-truyen-thuyet-ve-hoa-uu-dam-cua-phat-giao-nhu-the-nao-

6, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5aIaIocwJ0

Because Falun Gong base on Buddhism's book to said that the Chrysopidae eggs is Udumbra. Falun Gong wrote about 1000 papers to share on 100 website Viet language for ten years. So more and more people believe that Chrysopidae eggs is Udumbra. But the fact Buddhism's book don't mention size, color, and shape of Udumbra in some Buddhism's book which Falun Gong cite. There are many paper on Falun Gong web site base Udumbra to Said that Li Hongzhi is God of God, and Buddha of Buddha. But the fact Udumbra by Falun Gong is Chrysopidae eggs. Nguyenquocminhminh (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Nguyenquocminhminh: Welcome to wikipedia. I saw your note to Joshua Jonathan and here, then read the section you added to Udumbara. The "strange creatures" etc wording is odd and not encyclopedic, your citing of non-English websites in Vietnamese language raises WP:RS questions. Do you have peer reviewed sources that would meet wikipedia's reliable sourcing guidelines? The links such as youtube/blogs etc above would not be acceptable, regardless of how you personally feel about them. The content you added is still in the article, but will likely get challenged and deleted unless you revise it to reflect what is in the WP:RS. You can try links above to find better sources, particularly the books, scholar and JSTOR links in bold. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Friend the cite from reliable sourcing of Viet Nam (on wiki Viet Nam). sources, Example: Main page of Buddhist Sangha of Vietnam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Sangha_of_Vietnam, https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/VietNamNet Or You can discusion if you think this is need. May I have a question:

Follows Buddhism's book Udumbara is Ficus racemosa fruit.

see Udumbara (Buddhism), but why google search image "Udumbara" is "Chrysopidae eggs" ^[1] Nguyenquocminhminh (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Nominated, fyi. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are too generous mentioning me as an editor who contributed to the 5x expansion of the article. I did not contribute a single sentence, just some url´s and refs to Ambedkars relevant publications. I found one problem in the lead: the term "correct Buddhism" may imply that Theravada Buddhism is the only authentic school of Buddhism. JimRenge (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your contributions were more substantial than that! The talk page, the edit history attest to it. Plus you started it all. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i am lived korea over 35 years. and i study buddism over 20 years. and then i study at other contury over 3 years. r u know about korea? why do u delete my article about Ksitigarbha in korea??????? i write that . because nobody write about Ksitigarbha in korea. why do u delete? what kind of reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.149.103 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]