User talk:JimRenge

JimRenge is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

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.

	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]

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]

		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]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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

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

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

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]

Religion in Norway[edit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Stop![edit]

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]

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]

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]

Some attention[edit]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

My last change,[edit]

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]

question about content.[edit]

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]

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]

this is about the edit war.[edit]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

		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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	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]

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