Hi, Professoremeritus. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Jenks24 (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Professoremeritus! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Professoremeritus. I've reverted several of your edits, due to the poor quality of its edits, especially the WP:UNDUE emphasis on the Lotus Sutra. Please take care; Wikipedia is not a place to promote a specific religious point of view, but an encyclopedia, which as ks for WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JJ: I must respectfully disagree with your assessment. I have no intention of promoting the Lotus Sutra and am not even a part of any of the Lotus Sutra traditions or the SGI etc. I have also edited articles on Amitabha and other aspects of East Asian studies that go against the Lotus Sutra. I have left a message on your talk page as well Kindly let me know what is the best way to resolve this. Furthermore, I wrote the full quote of Paul Williams, why did you change it? Thanks and best regards, PE

From User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Lotus Sutra:

Hi JJ, Just to calrify, I was not promoting the Lotus Sutra and would like to respectfully correct your observation. I just corrected a quote from Paul Williams and expanded on Dogen's use of the Lotus Sutra which was already mentioned. I used citations that were credible. There has to be a basis for you to undo an edit on a page where we have credible citations and are simply explanding concepts already mentioned. I have also made additions to Pure Land pages and Pure Land traditions tend to be quite opposed to the Lotus Sutra which shows I am neutral. My expertise is East Asian studies so it would make sense that this is where I can make the best contributions. Is there an authority we can ask to adjudicate on this? Thanks and best wishes.

I propose to move this to ProfessorEremitus´s talk page, where the discussion started. JimRenge (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Start with familiarizing yourself on Wikipedia-policies, such as WP:STYLE.

Your "correction" of Paul Williams added information from another source, yet your edit-summary suggests that this is what Paul Willams wrote. That's not a good way of editing. NB: Paul Williams already was quoted correctly; you added "a supreme revelation," which is not what Paul Williams wrote.

You added info on Dogen and the Lotus Sutra at several places: in the lead of Zen diff and the lead of Dogen diff, both WP:UNDUE; and in the body of Zen diff which was far undue for a general overview article. As for help from authorities: start with Ms Sarah Welch and JimRenge. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. I have corrected the exact wording of the Paul Williams quote. With due respect, your editing of the Paul Willaims quote in response to mine was also incorrect and lacking but there is no dispute as it is now with full and complete accuracy and both of us were perhaps conveying the meaning regardless. I do not see why the Dogen bit should not be included in the body of the article though I agree it need not be in the introduction. Also, it makes sense to edit a few articles on the Lotus at the same time before moving on to another topic as we are often encouraged to link pages and sections to other pages and sections on Wikipedia. I am new and intend to keep improving but my contributions are valid. Thanks for your input. Professoremeritus (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Professoremeritus: Welcome to wikipedia. You may wish to review content guidelines of wikipedia. @Joshua Jonathan and other editors are right. You did misread or misquote Paul Williams' 1989 book, the Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, 2nd Edition. Comparison of a text to the Bible, Vedas, Quran and texts of other religions is best avoided in overview encyclopedic articles. It raises implied referential bias, neutrality issues and such a style of introducing a text can be confusing to readers who do not know either religions. This is true even if some source, in certain context or review of two religions, makes such a comparison. The old version is better and fully supported on page 149 of Williams. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarah Welch: Thank you for reaching out and pleased to make your introduction. With due respect and a cooperative attitude, I'd like to point out that I quoted word for word what Paul wrote on page 141. I could not seem to find your citation on page 149. However, I have no dog in this fight and leave it to your discretion. Either way, the edits I made were in good faith and expanded on what was already present. In fact, the edit I made that you reverted was a word for word accurate quote from page 141 and referenced as such. Nonetheless, as a professor I encourage debate and discussions in good faith. I shall not argue with you or the other editors and wish you all well. However, Paul William's saying that it "is the near equivalent to a bible" does not seem to offend any other religion as the Gita is seen as the "bible for Hindus" and the word 'bible' signifies important religious text as opposed to exclusively Christian theology. Professoremeritus (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Williams has written many books. We are discussing the one which is cited in the article. I have a paper copy of that Williams' 1989 book, and it is the one the article is referring to. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarah Welch: Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations by Paul Willians, page 141, last 3 lines: "For many East Asian Buddhists, since early times, the Lotus Sutra is the nearest Buddhist equivalent to a bible, one revealed work containing the final truth, itself sufficient for salvation". There is also a preview on Google of the exact page. I do not see how adding an accurate quote in its full form is inappropriate but I leave it to the collective discretion of the most active users. The present quote entered by you does not seem to be an accurate representation of page 141 of the book in question.

@JimRenge - The quotes are credible from established sources. The quote from Paul Williams that I entered was full and accurate, the current quote is not what I see in the online preview of the book we are referring to. A few lines about the significance of a work should be included in the introduction - especially a work as seminal as the Lotus Sutra. However, I understand that you are in charge and have a different opinion and I respect your authority. Perhaps my time is best used elsewhere. Best wishes to you all.

Professoremeritus, I have moved content that you have added with this edit because it appears WP:UNDUE in the WP:LEAD. The lead should summarize the article in a neutral way. Lopez was not quoted correctly. He said "arguably the most famous sutra." I think the quote collection in the "Impact" section is less than ideal and needs better sources. JimRenge (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Professoremeritus: You are probably looking at the 1st edition, because I do see it there on page 141. Williams removed that Bible sentence and rewrote some of the chapters in the 2nd edition. Both versions state first published in 1989, the 2nd edition in 2009. We should stick to Williams 2nd edition. Please see my note above on it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your feedback and guidance. Will make it a point to add page numbers in the future. However, with due respect to Jonathan, I do not think it is right to start reverting every edit I have made since such behavior needlessly discourages newcomers and can be seen as vindictive. I do have an interest in East Asian religions and philosophies and have tried to make pertinent and credible contributions to the same. I wish you no ill-will but will probably limit my activity on Wikipedia like many others I know. We should be less defensive and more welcoming of other viewpoints, in my humble opinion. Major issues must be addressed but systematically going after every contribution a person makes is not always warranted or in good faith. Kind regards Professoremeritus (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JimRenge. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Joshua Jonathan that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Accusations of vandalism without evidence (diffs) are personal attacks. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying this politely: you re-inserted twice a lot of WO:PUFFERY and WP:UNDUE at Zenji Nio, and didn't even bother to use the talkpage. You've been provided with several links to Wiki-policies; please read them now, before running into real trouble. See also WP:BRD. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To start with: you put talkpage-messages at the bottom of the page, not at top. And in response to your new message there: read WP:VANDALIZE, and try to understand what it says. I've explained my edits at Zenji Nio at the talkpage; you didn't even respond there. See also WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have amicably responded on your talk page and have also left my observations on the subject's talk page as you requested. No offense intended and have tried to be as polite, cooperative and civil in tone throughout. Kindly do not interpret my respectful disagreements any other way. I never intended to ruffle your feathers in any way and genuinely would like to deflate any tension as it seems we all have a shared interest in common subjects.:)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zenji Nio. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment:

• So far you've made 58 edits, yet you already use phrases like "original research" and "wiki-wars." How come? When did you learn these terms?
• Regarding "you said you want to conduct your own research into a person which clearly is a violation of the jurisdiction of a wiki editor" and "Its a very dangerous precedent for wiki editors to start doing their own research and personal investigations instead of simply reporting what credible newspapers like the Times of India have published" - I think you're very well aware of the difference between checking sources and WP:OR. Insinuating that I'm doing OR when I scrutinize your edits is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Also
• Regarding "I noticed how you started undoing all of my edits just because you did not like the fact that I used a different edition for the Paul Williams quote on the Lotus Sutra" - the problem there was that you used a different version, without being aware that you did. That's annoying indeed; I expect more comptenece than that. And I didn't undo "all of your edits"; I undid some, and explained why.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response:

1] Whenever you look up how to make an article, the first thing you find is information about edit wars that I mistakenly called wiki wars and original research. However I still do not know all the WP: codes and so use generic descriptions.

2] In terms of original research - you are free to scrutinize my edits but you said you would look into a subject's lineage yourself instead of simply conveying what was reported by credible, 3rd party media outlets like Times of India or National Post etc. You have cited an anonymous blog instead of credible, independent, 3rd party media outlets such as the ones listed on the page. This would comprise original research.

3] My so-called incompetence should not have set you off. There is a policy of "don't bite the newbie" and "assume good faith". You accused me of promoting the Lotus Sutra without any reason and then you accused me of being a sockpuppet without any reason either. I will be calling for a full invesitgation of the way you have behaved so that the leaders of this site can come to their own conclusions about how you have been conducting yourself.

4] I hope we can call certain impartial Admins to read the full Talk page of the article in question and then decide if you have been behaving in a fair and reasonable manner.

Sockpuppet investigations are always handled by Admins and I see that a rationale has been provided, your statement that there was no reason is incorrect. I note that you are still not assuming good faith at the article talk page. That's disappointing. As for original research, Joshua Jonathan is clearly talking about looking for sources, which isn't original research. Sources of course are expected to contain original research. And if I've got it right, the blog in question wasn't intended to be used as an actual source for the article. Finally, I note that you say you had an earlier account but you don't name it. Perhaps you should. I'd like to know what it is. Doug Weller talk 07:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Zenji Nio, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. diff (notability) diff (notability) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Zenji Nio that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The phrase "Smash the Buddha" is a well-known phrase from Zen. Yet, you state "added a quote from Joshua's user page which says "smash the Buddha" - this shows a racist propensity to attack Buddhism and Buddhist leaders and may be driving his agenda." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've ignored an earlier warning about personal attacks. You've ignored my comments on good faith and civility. You didn't bother to read the note on the Buddha image (again a lack of accepting the possibility that he may be editing in good faith). Your request for mediation appears to be asking not just for a content discussion but your grievance with an editor so may be rejected.

Note that Administrators do not decide content disputes. If you do wish sanctions to be taken against another editor you can go to WP:ANI. The Arbitration Committee also does not decide content disputes and we only accept cases where all other avenues have been exhausted. I'm a member so I can assure you that's the case. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed been careful in my tone and yet must respectfully point out that it seems you have completely ignored any and all of his conduct. You even said that he did not post a link to an anonymous blog on the main page of the Zenji article when in fact he did do so and even highlighted it under a separate section. Furthermore, to many Asian Buddhists "Smash the Buddha" is racist and even considered hate speech. It can get you arrested in Thailand or Sri Lanka or even India. You would not say Smash Jesus or Mohammad even if a small sect may have such a custom. The larger majority has to be considered as well. If a tiny sect of Zen says its ok, that does not justify it. Most of the majority schools of Buddhism treat the Buddha with highest possible reverence and all of the sutras do as well, regardless of what some eccentric Zen monk may say or do. I further pointed out that another user accused Joshua of bias against an Indian leader. I do not mean to offend anyone but I do feel that this entire matter needs to be presented to the ANI as you suggested. Can you please explain to me the timeframe by when we can have an impartial Admin or Community (not personally contacted by Joshua) look into this and deal with the page under dispute one way or another? We clearly need others involved in this discussion for a more neutral POV. Thanks for your instructions and I will contact the ANI as well as amend the Meditation Request Professoremeritus (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Professoremeritus: "Smash the Buddha" is a part of the famous Zen teaching by Linji, also called Rinzai, to understand true Buddhism and as a path of emancipation. It simply means "authority and external symbolism mean nothing, there is no external authority, the authority comes from within you, focus on contemplation, because that is the highest of man's activity". You are way off in criticizing and personally attacking Joshua Jonathan on this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Bodhisattva- warrior. All in all, consider this: being active at those paralympics is a good achievement, and worth mentioning, especially because of the plea for attention for disabled persons, and the influence on Sony ESPN. That is really worthy for a Bodhisattva. I've worked a lot with handicapped people, I know the attitude of the people working in that area, and believe me, they don't give a shit about being a hot-shot, but they do care about people who care. With other words: don't care about yourself, care about others. As Jesus said (sort of, reworded in my words): the "Kingdom of Heaven" is not in Heaven, it's here on Earth, when we behave like it. Consider this too: the Jewish tradition speaks about "righteous ones." Those are not hot-shots (Brahmins, whatever), but can be very simple, avaerage people, yet who do 'the right thing,' here on earth. Or, back to Jesus: the Kingdom of Heaven is for the children. And as my teacher said, a Buddhist: all will be saved. I think you get my point here: you don't have to be a great person to be a good person. Wish you all the best, and take care (of others as well as yourself), Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Zenji Nio. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Michitaro (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Lotus Sutra.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not misrepresent sources (here: Jaqueline Stone, Tricycle spring 2006 https://tricycle.org/magazine/final-word-interview-jacqueline-stone/) to promote your or Zenji Nio´s POV as you did with this edit, marked as minor. JimRenge (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)) below. Doug Weller talk 21:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]