Hello, Teishin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango123 17:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Thanks for uploading Image:ApredicaLogo RGB sm.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teishin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. --Jobrot (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teishin. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Phantasiai.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The article should rely more on academic sources discussing the uses of phantasiai, rather than the primary sources where they are used. The existing citations should also be edited to be more accessible to people unfamiliar with Greek epistemology

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Rosguill)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:, yes, that page could use some work. I noticed Phantasiai mentioned in some wiki pages, even a place where there was a non-functioning link, but no page for it, which seemed problematic given the existence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantasia . I moved this content from some other page where the term was mentioned. The term is important in several of the Hellenistic philosophies. At the moment I'm tied up with some other matters and don't have time to do the kind of search for academic sources that would seem to meet your criteria. I'm mostly just familiar with the primary sources. Teishin (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sage (philosophy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seneca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Acatalepsy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phantasia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a)I 've misspelled your name here [1], you prob didn't receive a notification. b)I was reading Anarchism and Authority, A Philosophical Introduction to Classical Anarchism[2] (also available at the net) the day before yesterday and I jumped into an extensive discussion of pyrrhonian scepticism. Now what were the chances of that? Maybe the universe is conspiring to inform you on this specific book, as I understood you are interested in pyrrhonianism. Cinadon36 10:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pyrrhonism sidebar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teishin! You created a thread called Stoicism Template Error at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) (ban this bot) or ((nobots)) (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teishin! You created a thread called Sidebar is creating a heading at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) (ban this bot) or ((nobots)) (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Praeparatio evangelica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peripatetic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For great, much needed contributions around the Dissent article. Contributions which exemplify some of the best of what Wikipedia can offer. PPEMES (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_31#Template:Ancient_Greek_skepticism. PPEMES (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Dissent. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Beware of continuing the edit war reported at WP:AN3. The steps of WP:DR are open to you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Sumeru Press, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster _talk 02:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pratītyasamutpāda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theaetetus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been inappropriately conflating the terms "belief", "certainty" and "knowledge". I've always thought that knowledge must per definition be objectively true, so that "true knowledge" emphasises certainty. But certainty and knowledge aren't the same thing. Belief is what we accept as knowledge, and certainty attaches to beliefs. The question is whether we can ever be certain that our conceptions of our knowledge are accurate. Heymid (contribs) 10:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Buddhism and the Roman world, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove sections added about new schools and sects of secular Buddhism with links and citations. Secular buddhism is beginning to have I institutionalized sects and schools of it's own related to but entirely separate from Theravada and mahayana. If you continue to remove valid additions to secular Buddhism, I will take aggressive action with wikipedia to have secular Buddhism locked from your invalid, authoritarian, fascist edits and deletions. Final warning. You do not own this entry. Sarahjones49 (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teishen - The entry below was on the site for a couple of months, I'm not sure if you deleted it or not. I would be amenable to it appearing in a separate section. If there are other issues may we please discuss? River-kind (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

start: There is also a variation of Secular Buddhism underway since 2012 that seeks to free the Lotus/Nichiren tradition from the trappings of supernaturalism, dogma and, as Stephen Batchelor notes in After Buddhism, the “unselfconscious rhetoric about its awakened teachers, pure lineages, and meditations.”[1] See "A Comprehensible Ultimate for a Common Good" end.

Please read the article before commenting. If you would comment before 3/24/20, so that I may address your concerns before posting, it would be appreciated.

(River-kind (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC))

Perhaps it would be useful to have a section on different manifestations of Secular Buddhism by Buddhist tradition.Teishin (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:River-kind That article got flooded with a large amount of uncited claims in this section. As I mentioned before, content about different manifestations of Secular Buddhism would be a good addition to the article. The issue now is that we just have to find proper sources to support what is put in there. We cannot use self-published information, and we can't let such information work as advertising. Teishin (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teishin, please consider to copy your comment to Talk Secular Buddhism. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gymnosophists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Porphyry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your many contributions to articles on ancient Greek skepticism. --Drevolt (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teishin. I have a real problem with your definition of the term "dogma" - I can't find any reliable source that uses it to mean anything other than an official statement of a religious belief. I can see why you'd like to include the fundamental beliefs of various philosophical systems, but it just doesn't fit, or not so far as I can tell.Achar Sva (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Cyrenaics into Western philosophy. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting edits without explanation on Western philosophy and Hellenistic philosophy or the admins will get involved. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations were given. Threads were opened on the Talk pages. Please, go ahead and invite admins in. You are the one who started the edit war. My edits moved the articles closer to the status quo ante -- the state before your erroneous additions. Teishin (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keepcalmandchill thank you for withdrawing your claim on the noticeboard. Teishin (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keepcalmandchill thank you for withdrawing your claim on the noticeboard. Teishin (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Hellenistic philosophy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Teishin. You've been warned for long term edit warring as a result of the complaint at the edit warring board. The next time you or the other party make a change to Hellenistic philosophy you are risking a block unless you have received a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Teishin. I've proposed that User:SebastianHelm should go ahead with his plan for resolving the disagreement between you and Keepcalmandchill about Hellenistic philosophy. See my update here. I won't take any action myself unless the edit war at Hellenistic philosophy restarts. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Western philosophy

Per User_talk:SebastianHelm/Philosophy#Disengagement?, the above restrictions issued by EdJohnston are extended to the article Western philosophy. This is limited under a certain condition – see the linked talk page for details. ◅ Sebastian 15:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teishin, can you please back up your claims at WP:ANI#User:Teishin acting in an insulting and unconstructive way with diffs, so that we can move towards a resolution? ◅ Sebastian 20:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Yes, I completed this at 21:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Teishin (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your cooperation. I closed the case now and moved the resolution to User:SebastianHelm/Philosophy for easy reference. There is already a question about SEP as a source on the corresponding talk page; I would appreciate your opinion there. ◅ Sebastian 00:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC) P.S.: I posted this here in this section, since it is related to the previous thread; you may want to adjust the heading accordingly.[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's not said that George Realizes how Heartless Potter is, it's implied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.170.187 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where? How? Teishin (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Posidonius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aristotelian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Teishin. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sumeru Press".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a Third opinion on our George Bailey disagreement. See Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. --Macrakis (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lacydes of Cyrene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cyrene.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Academica (Cicero). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academica (Cicero), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teishin! I just wanted to stop by and say good job with the Academica article; it looks really good! In the past, I've worked on a few of the articles on Cicero's works, and I'm always happy whenever I see the addition of good content. Vale et bonam fortunam!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gen. Quon Thank you for the kind words. The lack of an article on the Academica has been bothering me for some time. It's one of his most important works and it tends not to get as much attention as Academic Skepticism isn't such a popular topic at present. Teishin (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to see more stuff from you. :) Due to some life stuff (mostly grad school, ahaha) my editing has slowed down, but if you ever need help in the future, just holler!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Since I stumbled upon related sources I initiated an article draft Draft:Irrational beliefs. I am looking for some help in encyclopedic expansion of the topic. Please do visit the draft, and help expand if feel interested in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the lead of the Pre-Socratic philosophy article says, "Thales...is considered the first philosopher" – I wonder if this should be changed to "Thales...is considered the first known philosopher" as there were probably philosophers before Thales who have been lost to history – I don't have a reliable source to justify this change – the Thales of Miletus article says, "Many, most notably Aristotle, regarded him as the first philosopher in the Greek tradition", but adds that he was the "first individual in Western civilization known to have entertained and engaged in scientific philosophy" (emphasis mine) – not a big point, but as you have been improving the Pre-Socratic philosophy article I wondered what your thoughts were – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please restore capitalization of Stoicism in all the articles you recently edited. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said elsewhere regarding MOS:DOCTCAPS: Academic (as an adjective related to an ancient philosophical school) comes from a proper name (Platonic Academy), Stoicism comes from a proper name (Stoa Poikile), Epicureanism comes from a proper name (Epicurus), Peripateticism comes from a proper name (Peripatos); but, contrarily, skepticism is just a plain common name not related to any proper names at all. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omnipaedista, you are being inconsistent. "Stoicism" just comes from the word for a porch. "Peripateticism" just comes from the word for walking paths. Those are no more proper nouns than other words you deem not to be proper nouns. Besides, in the case of stoicism, that term is being modified extensively with capitalized adjectives, such as "Ancient." You are not being consistent about that, either. Teishin (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you really need to understand what proper name means as used in basic grammar textbooks. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the topic says "The distinction is recognized in the Oxford English Dictionary entry "proper, adj., n., and adv." The relevant lemmas within the entry: "proper noun n. Grammar a noun that designates an individual person, place, organization, animal, ship, etc., and is usually written with an initial capital letter; cf. proper name n. ..."; "proper name n. ... a name, consisting of a proper noun or noun phrase including a proper noun, that designates an individual person, place, organization, tame animal, ship, etc., and is usually written with an initial capital letter. ..."." --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of your edits are perfectly fine, decapitalizing "ancient" and "neoplatonism." --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Stoa" may mean "porch" but here we are talking about a very specific place (Stoa Poikile, "Painted Porch"), "peripatos" may mean "walking path" but here we are talking about a very specific place ("The Walking Path of the Lyceum (Classical)" a.k.a. "Peripatos"). --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omnipaedista, your approach to dealing with edits you disapprove of is problematic, as based on your disapproval of just a few keystrokes of an edit, you choose to revert the entire edit. Moreover, your approach is inconsistent, as you approve of uncapitalized "neoplatonism" (so what happened to "Plato" here?) but disapprove of the others you mention. Regarding stoicism, the nickname was merely inspired by the painted porch where some of the early lectures were given. When people refer to the "stoa" with respect to stoicism, they are referring to the collective of stoics, not to the Stoa Poikile. Regarding the nickname for the Aristotelians, that's not the name of any specific walkways. There just happened to be a lot of walkways at the Lyceum and the nickname reportedly came from Aristotle's habit of walking on them while talking at the Lyceum. There's not a trace of a proper noun there unless one were to view the names of the Hellenistic philosophies as names of organizations (albeit typically informal ones). You appear to be taking an idiosyncratic and inconsistent approach to the standards that you claim to be following, and to be acting on those standards only selectively. Teishin (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy follows the same capitalization rules as Wikipedia. Peripatetic and Stoic are capitalized as per the reasons I gave above. This is a perfectly consistent convention in English philosophical bibliography. Stoa Poikile and Peripatos of the Lyceum are considered proper names and the adjectives related to these words are considered proper adjectives. Same source gives "Academic scepticism." Scepticism is not a proper adjective. (Sorry, I did not mean to revert the entire edit.) --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neoplatonism is trickier. Most reliable sources capitalize it because they consider this word to be derived from Plato. However, strictly speaking the proper name is Plato, not "Neoplato." There is an ongoing debate on Wikipedia regarding the capitalization of Neoplatonism and Neopythagoreanism, but this is not the topic of this thread. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omnipaedista, I cannot find anything explicit in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy about their following the same capitalization rules as Wikipedia. What I can find implicit there is that they have widespread inconsistency about capitalization that varies from article to article, depending on the style decisions of the article's author. For example, in the entry on Aenesidemus we get this capitalization: "Aenesidemus was a Greek philosopher of the first century BC who revived Pyrrhonian Scepticism, formulating the basic Ten Modes of Scepticism, or tropoi, and demonstrating that concepts such as cause, explanation, goodness and the goal of life engendered endemic and undecidable dispute; faced with this the Sceptic suspends judgment - and tranquillity follows." The same with the entry on Agrippa.

I don't think that "Stoicism" and "Peripateticism" are considered proper names for the reasons you argue. How can you justify capitalizing Cynicism with those reasons?

I see the issue about Neoplatonism to be closely related to this issue. Routledge uses both "Neoplatonism" and "Neo-Platonism." In either case the capitalization of "N" suggests some style rationale different from that of Wikipedia is involved. Teishin (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) As I've said elsewhere we may not invoke the style guide of any other outlets out there and this applies to my post above. Actually you are right about Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I took a closer look and realized there is wide variation from article to article. I merely mentioned this source as an indication that my approach is not idiosyncratic. What we really need to invoke is Wikipedia's style guide and grammar textbook definitions (see the Oxford English Dictionary definition I mentioned above: "a noun that designates an individual person, place, organization"). According to grammar textbook definitions "cynicism" is not a proper name. Our style guide only depends on what reliable dictionaries count as proper nouns. By the way, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters should be hosting this discussion really. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion there about this [3] Teishin (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will chip in as soon as possible. I suggest we both avoid style changes to the related articles for a few days/weeks since there is an ongoing discussion on the matter. Thank you for opening it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heyyy you just edited wrong thing about Buddha yes nepal didn't existed at that time so I wrote (present nepal) and yea india also didn't existed at that time so how can you write he gained education and stayed in ancient india?yes nepal didn't existed but now that place is in nepal what if someone is looking for that place to travel they will only find india and they will get misinformed so I again edited it hopefully you will not edit it again Ananta5421 (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ananta5421 the prior editors who reverted your edit referred you to the article's Talk page. That's where your comments should go, not on my Talk page. Teishin (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pre-Socratic philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colophon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don’t see a reference to the translation of “ad” as “to” in the section on arguments from commitment, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. If there’s a need to provide a further English definition for ad, it should be somewhere that’s not where the phrase “ad hominem” is described. I’m going to revert your reversion, unless I’ve missed or misunderstood something. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Eponymous-Archon (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous-Archon this discussion should be on Talk:Ad_hominem rather than here. You removed sourced content regarding the definition of "ad". While it's true that there is not further discussion about this in the argument from commitment, that is the usage, one which seemed well enough explained in the sourced content you deleted. In the argument from commitment the argument is "to" or "towards" the person with the commitment. Teishin (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the placement of this thread. I get comments on my talk page about edits I've made, so I figured it was ok. Feel free to move. Just one closing comment: the section in question (correctly) uses the definition of "against" for ad, so I think other definitions aren't needed there. For ex, ad also means "nearby", but that's not relevant here either. So, sourced or not, the information I deleted doesn't belong here. I still don't get the relevance of the "from commitment" argument either. The article doesn't cite the definition there. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Teishin, thanks for helping at 3O! Just a word about procedure: If you offer to take a request (or simply give an opinion without offering first, which is the way 3O usually works), please remove the case from the pending requests list on the 3O page before making the offer or giving the 3O at the article talk page. And don't add comments to the request on the 3O page. (About the only time that's appropriate is when a party's request has been removed as being stale with no volunteer taking it after being listed 6 days and they relist it. In that case it's appropriate for a volunteer to add "Relisted" after the listing.) But all that's small matters as your help there is really appreciated! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pre-Socratic philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abdera.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Seeking your valuable inputs @ Talk:Cognitive relativism#Redirect discussion since previously you seem to have edited the article Relativism

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of the terms 'Neoplatonic', 'Neoplatonism', 'Neoplatonist' and 'Neopythagorean'

Hi,

I have re-capitalized the terms 'Neoplatonic', 'Neoplatonism', 'Neoplatonist' and 'Neopythagorean'. This conforms to 20th and 21st century authoritative scholarship.

Apart from the below, it is also capitalized on Oxford Languages, Stanford's site, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Lowercase is very unusual.

For capitalization of the terms 'Neoplatonic', 'Neoplatonism', 'Neoplatonist', see:

. Nikulin 2019 Neoplatonism In Late Antiquity,

. Mariev 2017 Byzantine Perspectives on Neoplatonism,

. Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014 The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism,

. Remes 2008 Neoplatonism,

. Dillon & Gerson 2004 Neoplatonic Philosophy. Introductory Readings,

. Lloyd 1998 1990 The Anatomy of Neoplatonism

. Gersh 1986 Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism the Latin Tradition Vols. 1 & 2;

. Gerson 2004 What is Platonism,

. Sorabji 2005 The Philosophy of the Commentators 200-600 AD,

. Harrington 2004 Sacred Place in Early Medieval Neoplatonism,

. Harris 1981 Neoplatonism and Indian Thought,

. Mariev 2017 Byzantine Perspectives on Neoplatonism

. Merlan 1968 [1953] From Platonism To Neoplatonism

. Wallis 1992 Neoplatonism and Gnosticism

. Ahbel-Rappe 2010 Damascius’ Problems and Solutions Concerning First Principles

. MacKenna 1956 Plotinus The Enneads

. O’Neill 1971 Proclus Alcibiades I

. Baltzly 2007, 2009 and 2013 Proclus Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus Vols. 3, 4 and 5

. Calma 2020 Reading Proclus and the Book of Causes Vol. 2

For capitalization of the term 'Neopythagorean', see:

. Remes & Slaveva-Griffin 2014 The Routledge Handbook of Neoplatonism,

. Remes 2008 Neoplatonism,

. Gersh 1986 Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism the Latin Tradition Vols. 1 & 2,

. Jackson Lycos & Tarrant 1998 Olympiodorus Commentary on Plato’s Gorgias,

. Tarrant 2007 Proclus Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus Vol. 1,

. Morrow 1992 1970 Proclus A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements,

. Runia & Share 2008 Proclus Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus Vol. 2,

. d’Hoine & Martijn 2017 All from One, A Guide To Proclus

And others.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Unfortunately, none of that is relevant. See MOS:ISMCAPS Teishin (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darylprasad see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Teishin#Stoicism above. Teishin (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teishin

Neoplatonism is a religion (see Oxford dictionary) and at the very least an officially recognized sect (for the last 200 years) and therefore it is relevant MOS:ISMCAPS: "Names of organized religions (as well as officially recognized sects), whether as a noun or an adjective, and their adherents start with a capital letter."

Also, if you remove the capitalization you are effectively going against major authoritative works, which is very relevant.

Regards

Daryl Prasad

Darylprasad (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite reliable sources for claims that you make on pages relating to pre-socratic philosophy. Please stop attempting to interpret ancient sources yourself or making assumptions that older academic sources are not out of date. You also cannot cite WP:BLUESKY when someone asks you to provide citations for your claims - not only is it not a policy, but the very fact that someone else disputes the verifiability of your claim means that you cannot claim it is obvious. Equating Heraclitus's though with similar eastern ideas, as you did on Heraclitus, is a heavily debated area of research and the subject of multiple scholarly studies. You cannot just assume that it looks similar enough to Impermenance and equate them. WP:V is an editing policy and you need to follow it.

I suggest you get access to some reliable academic sources on this topic before making any more changes to these pages. The field of pre-Socratic philosophy is complex and it is easy to come to incorrect conclusions if you aren't reading the Greek and familiar with the relevant background literature on the topic. - car chasm (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you refrain from making wild and inflammatory accusations on the talk pages of other editors when they act to intervene following your WP:BOLD edits executed on several pages all at about the same time, pointing out things you have disrupted. Please see WP:NPA in this regard. Regarding the substantive issues, see my comments on the talk pages of the articles at issue. Teishin (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is attacking you here - you reverted a request for a reliable source citing WP:BLUESKY - which is neither a policy nor an appropriate response when someone asks you for a source. In the future, please try WP:BRD and refrain from edit warring - you should only do Bold, revert, revert when you are sure that the other editors will not disagre.

Please also do not mistake criticisms of your editing behavior for personal attacks. You need to be able to respond to criticism in a constructive way. Even if my criticism here was somehow not valid, this would not be a personal attack. - car chasm (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you've already claimed elsewhere that "basically everything wikipedia has on this whole field of study is terribly out of date, misleading, wrong, immoral, fattening, etc." that, being one of the editors who contributed to that, I think I have good grounds to say that you're making wild and inflammatory accusations, and that one should take objection to them. I further resent your accusations that I am giving responses that are not appropriate, that I am edit warring, that I am not following WP:BRD, and that I am unable to respond to criticism in a constructive way. Teishin (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend not "resenting" what you consider to be accusations but responding to them and clarifying why they do not apply. The fact that you disagree does not mean you are being personally attacked here. I have already explained how you did not follow WP:BRD on Heraclitus and why WP:BLUESKY is not a valid justification. If you disagree, you are welcome to explain why, and I am open to changing my opinion.

I appreciate that you care about this project, but you need to be able to distinguish between editors adding or removing information based on reliable academic sources, and personal attacks on your own character. I assume you have made many good contributions to these articles in the past, that cite reliable sources. I am asking you to do so now, as well. However, if you cannot support the claims you are making with reliable sources, you should not add them to Wikipedia. If you have done so in the past, I recommend tagging those contributions with a "citation needed" tag. - car chasm (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe take a look at a page like Pythagoras or Pre-socratic philosophy some time? These articles are certainly in much better shape and have many good examples of proper citation of reliable sources - though of course there is room for improvement in both. Properly cited, well-sourced articles on academic subjects like philosophy, that can be considered to have accurate information, are certainly the exception rather than the rule, but they do exist. I would simply ask that you edit with a mind towards emulating those types of articles in the future - with appropriate citations from recent academic sources. And understand that sometimes, removal of information that cannot be verified is warranted - it does not mean that anyone is personally attacking you, even if you added the material that was removed. Do not imply that others edits are disruptive simply because they are taking bold actions. You can certainly avoid this by citing you claims with appropriate sources. If you don't have access to a library, or perhaps a large pile of academic books scrounged from garage sales, the Internet Archive is often a good place to start, though you will need to make an account to borrow most of the more recent books there. - car chasm (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not need condescending lectures implying I have no access to reliable sources, "If you don't have access to a library, or perhaps a large pile of academic books scrounged from garage sales, the Internet Archive is often a good place to start, though you will need to make an account to borrow most of the more recent books there." Most particularly when I have already pointed you to information in the Wikipedia Library, which, funny enough, you don't have access to! I similarly do not need condescending lectures telling me to "edit with a mind towards emulating those types of articles in the future - with appropriate citations from recent academic sources."

I sure don't need to be told to go look at Pre-socratic philosophy when I've already cited to you!

Please redirect your attention to the substantive issues and eschew commenting about me and the other people who have edited the topics you've lately taken a fancy to. Teishin (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually hadn't looked into the Wikipedia Library before myself: that's much more useful than I expected it to be.

That wasn't really my point though. It's a matter of citing sources, not access to them. The issue still remains that the changes you made need to be cited, as someone (me) feels that they are not as obvious as the blue sky. If you don't have the bandwidth, perhaps a good compromise here that would follow all wikipedia policies would be to add a "citation needed" tag to the claim of impermanence on Heraclitus? - car chasm (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand is that it is you who are making the changes, not me. I've already pointed you to the past discussions and existing consensus on Heraclitus and impermanence. It is you who is acting to overturn this consensus. Teishin (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus does not override wikipedia policy - please provide citations for your claims. - car chasm (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one making the changes, not me. I've already pointed you to the past discussions and existing consensus on Heraclitus and impermanence. It is you who is acting to overturn this consensus. You do not get to accuse other editors of being personally responsible for what you see as deficiencies in articles, nor do you get to make them personally responsible for the claims in those articles, nor do you get to demand that they provide citations for the work of others. Teishin (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus does not override wikipedia policy - please provide citations for your claims. - car chasm (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that you are failing to follow WP:BRD. You made the bold changes, I reverted, and I opened the discussion Talk:Heraclitus#Impermanence. Not only on that page, but several others.

I wish to direct your attention to Wikipedia:You_don't_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue#Pedantry,_and_other_didactic_arguments and that the fact that the sky remains WP:BLUE is a valid response to what you are doing. Teishin (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - car chasm (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).

You can be unblocked promptly if you show an understanding of Veifiability and make a firm commitment to furnish a reference to a reliable source whenever you restore challenged content, and you must promise to do thus 100% of the time going forward. This requirement is not negotiable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, WP:BLUE is an essay, and is neither a policy nor a guideline. Mentioning an unofficial essay is never justification for refusing to follow a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328:Hi there. I'm totally uninvolved, just a curious passerby of the ANI thread. Am I correct in thinking that Teishin (a fairly casual editor of ~3000 edits in 16 years) made a tiny edit two days ago of adding a wikilink, soon dropped the questioned editing, actively engaged in discussion on the subject instead of editing it, got posted immediately at ANI within one day, then got blocked just now for what had happened prior to the discussion two days ago, without any admin engagement, without any warning, without linking the problem edits, and with indefinite? Did I catch that correctly? — Smuckola(talk) 00:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smuckola, if you carefully read all of this editor's recent edits, as I have, you will see that they had many opportunities to say, "Yes, I now see how important the Verifiability policy is, and I now understand that policy says, any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations and that the policy also says that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Can you point to a single instance where this editor has agreed to comply with this core content policy? I believe that I have made it crystal clear above that this editor can be unblocked promptly if they make a firm commitment to following the WP:V policy. Am I missing something? Cullen328 (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of posterity, I'm not so sure that "totally uninvolved" is an entirely accurate characterization here. I'm not sure what, if any interaction these two editors have had before, but someone asking you to help them out on your talk page isn't "totally uninvolved" from what I can tell. - car chasm (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smuckola, being a curious passerby myself of this talk page, like Cullen328, I'm wondering if I'm missing something. If indeed you read the ANI thread (which, if you had, you ought to have seen the parts where the problematic edits WERE linked, and where Teishin's previous warning at ANI and prior blocks were mentioned), you shouldn't be under any misapprehension about why Teishin was blocked, and it has not one single thing to do with how long Teishin's been an editor, how many edits he has, the duration of the ANI thread, or the length of the block. Do you understand that WP:V is a core content policy of the encyclopedia, and that abiding by its requirements is not optional? Ravenswing 02:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omnipaedista, you and I have edited many of the same subjects in the past and seem to have mutual respect. What do you think about this? Teishin (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex2006, what do you think?Teishin (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pings without WP:SIGN in the same published edit don't work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Teishin: Nor does canvassing. I'd recommend that you stop digging, as the only treasure you'll find at the bottom is talk page access being revoked. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For this addition on dukkha. I've been practicing and studying Buddhism for nearly 35 years now, and yet, this was eye-opening, finally making this part of the Buddhist teachings intelligible. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan, thank you for the Barnstar! It is kind of you to recognize a contribution I once made here.

Sadly, as you can see above, I've been forced into Wikipedia "retirement." This came about because I doubled down on my claim that Heraclitus was known for his thoughts on "impermanence." However, some other editor took offence to this, because synonyms of "impermanence" are typically used for Heraclitus' thought rather than "impermanence." I claimed that it was obvious that terms such as "flux" and "impermanence" referred to the same idea. Because I did this, in less than 2 days I got piled on as someone who refuses to abide by WP:V and consequentially got banished. Meanwhile, what is now "flux" on Heraclitus continues to point to Impermanence nearly half a year later.

I found this experience to be so unpleasant and Kafkaesque that I'm rather soured on Wikipedia. Since then I decided to put my volunteer efforts towards other things, the most notable of which is that we're now hosting a Ukrainian refugee family in our home. I'm also working on a second book (for as little as the royalties are, it's charity work). Best wishes, Teishin (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will reconsider your Wiki-leave. But hosting a refugee family is an absolutely good and compassionate thing to do! Wish you all the best with that. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]