User talk:Kim-Zhang-Hong

Welcome!

Hello, Kim-Zhang-Hong, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Mao Zedong. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to State atheism, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. You should also read WP:NPOV, as some of your edits appear to be commentary and opinion. Thank you.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles . Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to State atheism, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Sandor Clegane (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain your edits on the talk page of this article. You also know how to add edit summaries, you really should be adding them every time you edit - if editors understood why you were making changes you might get less of your edits reverted. I've just reverted your latest edit to this article, explaining some of my reasons in the edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. You are continuing to re-add material on Religious war which is not properly cited using NPOV sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources ([8] for example does not qualify as a WP:RS). This edit warring and refusal to discuss is despite three different editors reverting and asking you to discuss the changes you are trying to make. I am continuing to WP:AGF for the moment but before you make any further reverts or continue to make such edits to the article please (1) take a look at WP:BRD, WP:Edit war, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OR and (2) DISCUSS the changes you are trying to make and attempt to reach consensus. Thanks. Tameamseo (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please try to use edit summaries more often. And do not use misleading edit summaries such as this. Tameamseo (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you did constitutes as Synthesis of published material that advances a position, which is putting together information from multiple sources to reach a position, such as adding "Atheism per se can't be blamed for the atrocities of past communist countries were religion was suppressed because many religions such as Jainism are compatible with atheism and because atheists have no commandements to persecute religious believers.", which would also fall under POV. For the record, the article doesn't blame atheism for anything--all it is about is which countries used it. It doesn't say atheism was responsible for their actions, so defense isn't really necessary.

That being said, I removed Dinesh's quote about communism being an atheist ideology, and I'll remove the countries that aren't backed up by cited source.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, atheism was blamed, otherwise how do you explain people saying communism is explicitly atheistic and quoting Dinesh?(which is why I added communist priests such as Thomas J. Haqggerty, to prove them wrong) and how do you explain people saying Enver Hoxha banned religion just for atheism's sake? Banning religion doesn't even mean you're an atheist, you could be a deist Either way, the reader that reads this article should be aware that "state atheism" is just a term to define any government that suppressed religious beliefs and not necessarily one with the intention of making the country atheist, this term shouldn't even exist because again; religions like Jainism are compatable with atheism. This is something the reader should be aware of This isn't POV, it's a fact, give me one commandment that atheism has...it has none Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I already said, I removed Dinesh's quote. Keep in mind that many people edit Wikipedia, so such edits can sneak by. As for Enver Hoxha, we have the Albanian constitution to back up the claims of him making the country atheistic: "The State recognises no religion, and supports and carries out atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people". You really can't get any more explicit than that. Trust me, the last thing you have to worry about is Wikipedia having an anti-atheist bias--its quite the opposite.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't check behind your source. However, even if we grant this, where does it say he "set out to abolish all religion with the intention of making their country officially atheistic"? This constitution doesn't say it's against every single religion for the specific reason that they want everyone to be atheist. Just that it recognizes no religion, still could be deistic or secular but doesn't say anything about abolishing all religion for the sake of atheism. At one time Enver Hoxha even said "the Religion of Albania is Albanianism", ie statism, he wants people to focus deeply on the states desires and sacrifice their hopes and dreams in the name of the state. And even if he abolishes all religions that wouldn't make Albania atheistic, religions such as Jainism are atheistic and a nonreligious person could still be a deist, deists could also easily be materialists

Quite the opposite? I don't think so. In the past wikipedia cited Ethiopia, Poland, Afghanistan(and others) as having state atheist when they were(and still are) very religious. It also had unfounded assumptions such as North Korea being state atheist

The person reading the article would probably think Marxism is inherently atheistic, especially after reading Dinesh quote(which was outright wrong), and deleting it was ok but then again why was it there in the first place? To express Dinesh's wrong opinion?

If all the things I said above(among others) aren't anti-atheist bias then what are they? I mean, I understand China being state atheist but Poland and Ethiopia? No way! Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've deleted the tables and map and am thinking of taking the article to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to List of religious populations, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kim,

I am confused by the first sentence in the Taiping Rebellion section of Religious war.

The sentence says:

Inspired by a formerly illegal Protestant missionary tract in China, the core of the Taiping faith focused on the belief that Shangdi, the high God of classical China, had chosen the Taiping leader, Hong Xiuquan, to establish his Heavenly Kingdom on Earth.

The first phrase has several interpretations:

• A Protestant missionary wrote a tract. This tract used to be illegal, but it is not illegal anymore.
• A Protestant missionary wrote a tract. The Protestant missionary used to be illegal, but he (or she) was not illegal at the time he (or she) wrote the tract.
• A Protestant missionary wrote a tract. The Protestant missionary used to be illegal, but he (or she) was not illegal anymore.
• A person wrote a tract. The person used to be an illegal Protestant missionary, but was not a Protestant missionary at the time he (or she) wrote the tract.

Which interpretation did you intend?

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kim!

I really upset with your activities in List of religious populations. You didn't respect other editors because you always deleting sources of higher estimates for Buddhists. I am still keeping your citation given, alongside with earlier editions; please read NPOV. I have added some various estimates for Christianity section because I think it's needed. I hope you will stop do it again and show your respect for other editors because you don't own Wikipedia, or you aren't the only one editor here who think yourself is the best. That's enough and please stop your childish behavior. Thank you!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angelo, Sorry for upsetting you, but I'm also upset Apparently you say that I don't respect other editors because I object and deleted organizational reporting(96% Japanese being Buddhist). But remember that tou deleted my reliable Mongolia source(among others like Taiwan), doesn't that mean you disrespected me?

I removed your cia's Japan guesswork(which even you don't trust because you didn't add Spain or Scandinavia). The only high Buddhist estimation that I removed should have been Japan, and I would truly love it if Buddhists were higher in South Korea, but census data is the most reliable method(at least for self-identification) and it indicates otherwise I'm fairly certain I'm being neutral by doing this because I'm sticking to the article's main source(adherents.com), I guess you could indeed say that I consider this estimation the best because again, it's our main source. And if the main source is wrong when it tells me that surveys indicate that 20% of Japanese are Buddhist in its Buddhist section then perhaps we should drop it?

I'm sorry for the inconvenience, and I might be childish because I'm fairly new here(in comparsion to others like you). But I truly don't see much of a problem other than objecting to organizational reportings, surely you can't consider someone a Buddhist just because his ancestor was a Buddhist right? And I'm sure that most of the world brush their teeth more than they go to church but that doesn't mean we have to drop Christianity in Colombia at only 40%, because every source will show us that Colombia has much more Christians than this

Alot of countries like Scandinavia were associated with a church, but you can't add them to the Christian list. There are many Catholic and Protestant nations in Europe where the majority of people have been Christianed or otherwise counted as a member of the state church, but where large proportions of the population are still non-believers. Besides, even if you did count non-believers as Christian just becaause of organizational reportings. The difference is that in those European countries, those people are at least nominally adherents of the religion that claims them. "Nominally" here means if asked their religion, they can recall the name of the church they were baptized into as an infant, and don't mind citing that as their religious preference. In Japan, the majority of adherents of Buddhism&Shinto, as claimed by the organizations, don't even consider themselves adherents, even nominally

You can't be thinking of a huge marign of error of 13-96% Japanese Buddhists right? Nonetheless, I'll get the figure of Japanese Buddhists higher. But I still strongly object to organizational reportings, they will seriously mess up our list and if taken into consideration then that means that most people on earth could be identified as "atheist", because again, most people on earth don't practice their faith actively and I'm sure they brush their teeth more often

If you are still upset then tell me your thoughts like I just did and let's reach an agreement. If you have a better idea then I would like to hear it Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't appreciate your works here and seems like many other editors disagree with your personal one-sided opinions in other articles. I really tired with people who are childish and dictatorial like you are. I have added Denmark and Spain to the Christianity as your request because it's needed as a fair treat. I have no problem with various point of views. For examples; according to State.gov, both show the number of Buddhist/Shinto is 96% as the highest. Even you according to CIA you could see:

• Shintoism 83.9%, Buddhism 71.4%, Christianity 2%, other 7.8%

note: total adherents exceeds 100% because many people belong to both Shintoism and Buddhism (2005)

It's so hard to separate Buddhism or Shintoism (or between Buddhism or Taoism among Chinese communities; or between Buddhism and Animism in Mongolia or Laos, etc) but the real number of practical adherents is very low as 20% as in your citation given, I accepted to keep it because it's also right. Even there were different estimates from the same organization, just like in Taiwan where formal Buddhist is only 35% if according to State. gov. But according to CIA, you will see this line: mixture of Buddhist and Taoist 93%, Christian 4.5%, other 2.5%. That's very normal in East Asian countries where Buddhism is harmony with other folk religions (See more in Buddhism by country. However, it was difficult to estimate accurately the number of Buddhists because they did not have congregational memberships and often did not participate in public ceremonies [9].

Sorry for my poor English because I was born in Vietnam to a Chinese family, now I am living in CA now and I knew both cultures. I hope you understand our culture, religion tradition which are very different to Western standard. And let's people see the difference between various sources due to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, I think you must learn this rule by heart. You shouldn't stand on one side; take a look at Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia articles and you will see there are 2 side-by-side opposed point of views. That's what I am talking about: don't hurt anyone by your one-sided opinions and respect each other. I am sorry but I must tell you something, your behavior is not liberal and not fair, and that personality is not suitable here. If you still do it again, I think I will report it and you might be ban due to your non-neutral point of view. Thank you!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I really don't appreciate your works here and seems like many other editors disagree with your personal one-sided opinions in other articles"

What's so personal when I just follow what the main source reports? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if some from +6 billion people disagree, most people are ignorant and live on less than 2 dollars a day. Either way, I reached a certain agreement with many of these people and I intend to do the same here

"I really tired with people who are childish and dictatorial like you are"

Before you say I'm childish, make sure you don't make grammar mistakes and don't do what you accuse others of doing. Besides, truth isn't a democracy

"Please give me sources that show percentage of cultural Christians in Spain and Scandinavia which higher than 94%"

The CIA you just cited does

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sp.html Roman Catholic 94%

But again, the CIA religion guesswork shouldn't be trusted. The cia reports that 87% of Sweden is lutheran(ignoring other Christians like roman catholics) when in reality Sweden is an atheist majority. You should trust the cia only if it gives census data, so don't add Spain just because of that, I mentioned Spain and Scandinavia only to show how wrong organizational reportings can be. The CIA reports that 95% of Danes are Evangelical, but you can't add Denmark to the list because it's also a country with an atheist majority Sadly it seems you didn't even try to check behind what I told you so many times, did you?

"I have no problem with various point of views"

Opinions are meaningless in the face of evidence, I never intended for you to add countries like those. I just hoped these could show you how relying on organizational reporting could seriously mess up our list, what would you think if you saw that Buddhists range from as low as 13% to as high as 96%? You would say "something is definitely wrong here"

"It's so hard to separate Buddhism or Shintoism "

Not anymore than seperating Christianity and atheism in Europe. Besides, even if you add Shintoists you simply wouldn't get a third of Japanese as adherents of Buddhism, not to mention 96% Again, organizational reportings mean nothing. If someone wrote that some guy is a Buddhist because his 17th century ancestor was then would you trust him?

"That's very normal in East Asian countries where Buddhism is harmony with other folk religions"

Doesn't matter, if the majority of Japanese declare they have no religion then Buddhists simply can't be that high. And that's your main objection here. High sources would get the "no religion" bunch as high as 84%(Johnstone, 1993) but it's probably lower at 75%(as adherents.com indicates), and possibly as low as 65%, but even then that doesn't leave much for Buddhists, this high estimate of 96% really doesn't leave much for the rest of the groups of the nonreligious, Christians, new religions, etc. It's ridiculously high and you should be able to see how huge the marign of error is

"religion tradition which are very different to Western standard"

I understand that Buddhism combines many religions and its peaceful coexistence causes it to be underestimated alot of times, I myself wanted to edit the "Buddhism" article that says that Buddhists range from 230 to 500 million, when in reality they should be over 800 million

There are Hindu&Buddhist in Nepal, Shinto&Buddhist in Japan, Taoist/Confucianist/Buddhist chinese living in China and elsewhere, and stand in awe, there are even some Jews&Buddhist in Israel. I actually feel pretty attached to Buddhism(ironic?) Buddy, I don't live in America, and I know all of this so stop repeating the same thing

"don't hurt anyone by your one-sided opinions and respect each other"

Even though you said that, you removed the 2.1 Buddhists who were in Australia in the Buddhist section, there is no doubt it was 100% neutral. I also accepted alot of your previous estimates but simply added sources and removed the ridiculously low amount of Buddhists in places like China(a mere 8%? can't be)

I can't believe you actually went ahead and added Denmark to the Christian section when according to Petterson and Gustaffson(2000) as many as 80% Danes don't believe in God Sorry man, but I really can't see the problem, and relying on organizational reportings and the CIA's guesswork is still very unreliable and should never be used when talking about what people actually believe

Again, I strongly object about relying on organizational reportings and the CIA's guesswork, use the cia only when it gives census data and remove countries like Denmark from the Christian list, it just gives us with a huge marign of error when most people simply don't believe in Jesus even if the church counts them as believers. Likewise most Japanese definitely don't adhere to any religion, so how can so many Japanese be classified as Buddhists? Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are always insisting that State.gov and CIA The World Factbook are "well-cited" for Christian population in Panama, Guatemala, Romania (up to 99% and 100%) (Evidence) so I think it's also "well-cited" for cultural adherent number of Shintoism and Buddhism in Japan (up to 95%). But I wonder why you delete it although they are from the same sources (State.gov and CIA The World Factbook)? I respected your opinions and your citation given before and still keep it with other sourced estimates. I remind you should not violate the three-revert rule and the neutral point of view policy, that's why I have made a solution for this problem and I also found there is a source that said only 20% of the Japanese are practicing Buddhists:

1.  Japan 95%^[1][2] (20% practicing^[3], 45% of Japanese believe in Buddha^[4]) (mostly Mahayana with Shinto, Shinto 3%, Christian 0.6%, Muslim 0.1%)

I hope it's the last time I solve this problem and I think it's enough for both. Thank you. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japan is not a Buddhist majority country and you should know why by now, you admitted that only 45% believe in Buddha and yet 95% are Buddhist? I told you why i used the cia at times, you just didn't read my reply after you told me to discuss this with you, I was waiting for a really long time for you to reply and remained silent without any edits for a long while but you never replied, simply because you can't. Use the CIA only if it gives census data, otherwise it's just guesswork, the U.S state department cites other sources tons of times when it reports religiosity, you obtained your figures by asking religious bodies for statistics. The Shinto/Buddhist religious bodies have on record most Japanese citizens because of laws established in the centuries ago which required registration. Frequently seen high figures of 85% or 90% of Japanese being Buddhist come primarily from birth records, following a longstanding practice of family lines being officially associated with a local Buddhist temple. Japan has a large and thriving Buddhist community, but surveys indicate it to be closer to 20% of the population. Your reasoning will lead us to also believing that there are some 100 million Shintoists, do you seriously believe so many people think the emperor of Japan is divine or that they seriously think that trees have souls? Read your source, "Of citizens who claimed a faith" meaning not all of the population of Japan, only those who had a certain belief. I can argue with you forever since the evidence is so strongly against you but again I ask, what can possibly convince you that you're wrong? I didn't really revert it, I didn't target you personally and i'm not waging any war and the only thing from the Buddhist section I touched these couple of days are the rates in Japan, this isn't reverting, i'm editing the overall article. You never solved the problem, infact you removed much of my edits and I would appreciate it if you would stop for a moment and reason with me Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't deleted your citation given but it should would be better to shortening it because "70 percent profess no religious membership" left the rest 30% profess to religious membership so don't need to repeat it again in the main article like in your messy edition.

1.  Japan 95%^[5](Shinto with Mahayana)(20% to 45% believe in Buddha^[6])

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your anti-social editing on this page lately and you fail to assume good faith. Some of the estimates are different to give a neutral viewpoint. I noticed you are new here and might be unfamiliar so i reccomend you read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. It is also against wikipedia rules to edit controversial stats without a consensus. Your figures under 'other estimates don't add up to the global population which is 6.8 billion not 8 billion. Discus edits on this talk page before major revisions next time. Thank you and regards. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative, check out Major religious groups. Estimates are more open on that page so post you edits there instead. Thanks Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

....what? what do you mean "Your figures under 'other estimates don't add up to the global population which is 6.8 billion not 8 billion"....remember, many Buddhists and adherents of primal indigenous beliefs mix their religion with other religions so many for example are adherents of both Buddhism and Taoism or are adherents of Christianity and African religions

You didn't explain why you removed my spiritist and sikhism percentages, what was wrong with them? Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 07:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page List of religious populations has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary on the talk page, especially if it's a controversial edit. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Have you considered Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User? It's a program designed to help new and inexperienced Wikipedia users. Thank you. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Doesn't look like it, the last edit was done by me, what was reverted? Are you talking about my "Other estimate" section? Thanks for offering me to join that program, I didn't know it existed Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind telling me where in this source it says there are 1.8 billion english speakers? Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Nowadays English is used by an estimated 1.8 billion speakers" It's in http://www.ehistling-pub.meotod.de/01_lec06.php at the introduction section, check again, or did you mean something else? Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you make such a long name? Taoists/Confucianists/Practitioner of Chinese Traditional religions in list of religious populations? Change it pleaseIwanttoeditthissh (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I wanted it to be accurate, Taoists might also be Confucianists, yet they may also combine local chinese practices and beliefs, are you getting what I'm saying? It's somewhat complicated really. Do you have a better name for this? Maybe Taoists/Confucianists/Chinese religions practitioner? or maybe just call it a "mix of Chinese religions"....or do you have a better idea? Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Buddhism have been disputed by at least three different editors. Please follow BRD and use the talk page to convince us. Please do not continue to edit war your changes or I will request administrator intervention. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who disputed my edits, their reasons are what's important. Please do use the talk page to convince me and use it quickly, I already replied to you and I want to finish this ASAP. Don't just pick parts of my arguments, refute all of my arguments while you're at it Thanks in advance

Done. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just noticed you made this edit to List of religious populations. Could you take a momment to explain your rationale, either here or on the talk page of Talk:List of religious populations? I'm at a loss as to why you deleted information sourced to a 2009 International Report on Religious Freedom. Your accompanying edit summary was even more confusing: "Hardly anyone in Japan is a Shinto. Hardly anyone still thinks the emperor is of divine ancestry and hardly anyone still worships trees, rivers, and mountains." Could you please explain? Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High figures of Shintoists come from the Shukyo Nenkan (Religions Yearbook), put out by the Ministry of Education & Bureau of Statistics, and they obtain their figures by asking religious bodies for statistics. The Shinto religious bodies have on record most Japanese citizens because of laws established in the 17th Century which required registration with the Shinto shrines. Essentially everybody within local "shrine districts" were counted as adherents. In Japan, the majority of adherents of Shinto, as claimed by the Shinto organizations, don't even consider themselves adherents, even nominally. In polls, only about 2-3% of the Japanese people give Shinto as their religion

There are 2.7 million Shintoists

See: religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Also: World Almanac and Book of Facts 2000. Mahwah, NJ: PRIMEDIA Reference Inc. (1999). [Source: 1999 Encyc. Britannica Book of the Year]; pg. 695.

A figure of 100+ million is not true Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are supporting your edits regarding Shintoism with an argument you used against the edits on Buddhism. You are also using older sources again, rather than the new ones. You can't replace a newer source with an older one. Viriditas (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, actually organiational reportings in China get Buddhism very low, to your figure. Which I don't consider to be reliable

Organizational reportings for Shinto get it higher, atr nearly 100 million, which I again consider to be unreliable

Organizational reportings are the most unreliable method, we should refrain from using them as much as we can

Older, dude it's just by a few years, that's not old. Besides, what evidence do you have that Japanese people still truly think the emperor is of divine ancestry and who still worships rivers trees and mountains, comon, Shintoism is dead, it's over

Even if you still think it's old, religioustolerance isn't and it gets the figure at 2.7 million. I can give you multiple other sources if you don't believe me that get Shintoism at much lower than that

And you can replace a new source with an older one if the newer one is useless, I already explained why that new source is wrong, so now it's over for it Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that what the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance says is true, but you don't seem to have a grip on how we use sources, how we cite them, and how we don't cherry pick what we want out of what is. We know that according to the International Religious Freedom Report 2009, ~107 million persons identify themselves as Shinto. Wherever those figures come from or derive is a separate subject, certainly fit for a footnote or more of a nuanced discussion inline, provided the footnotes are more reliable than a website. And no, you can't replace a new source with an older one simply because you prefer it. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's what is, only 2.7 million or so Japanese identify as Shintoist. The 100 million figure simply isn't true Read it again more carefully "membership claims by religious groups" ie what the religious bunch are claiming, the religious bunch can claim whatever they want but it's still not true. Again, organizational reportings are the most unreliable methodm they shouldn't be used,otherwise we'll have to start putting countries in Scandinavia and France as most Christians when Christians don't even make the majority, things would seriously mess up this beautiful article if we started taking organizational reportings for what they say

Oh boy, you already started not answering all of my objections....You seriously think that 107 million Japanese think the emperor is of divine ancestry and that they worship trees, mountains, and rivers? Hardly anyone is a Shinto nowaday, clearly in our age of science, the more accurate figure is 2.7 million. I can give you tons of sources that declare it to be lower, again, I have to ask you, what would convince you that you're wrong? Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're playing childish games. Official statistics on Shintoism differ from self-reporting because there is a cultural disconnect between what we consider to be concepts of "religion" and "faith". It isn't that the 100 million figure isn't true, it's that it differs with self-identification surveys because many Japanese do not see their cultural practices as a religion. I'm getting concerned that you don't understand the articles you are editing and that you are wasting a great deal of other peoples time. You are not in a position to throw out reliable sources simply because you disagree with them. You are also not in position to cherry pick based on web sites. Tell me which reliable secondary and tertiary sources you've consulted on this subject. I don't want to see any more websites from you. I want hard, print copy, reliable sources. Picken 1994 puts your argument to rest, so please don't repeat it again. Viriditas (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly most Japanese people participate in holidays which have Shinto roots, but in this list we are trying to track self-identification, not general vestigial influence. Also, the strongest active religions which have Shinto roots (such as Tenrikyo) no longer claim to be "branches" of Shinto, and can be listed separately. No source in the world would convince you, it's pointless. You said something similar when you demanded for google books and when I gave you one you ignored it Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ignored a single thing in my entire six years here. Breen & Teeuwen (2010) summarize the issue perfectly:

According to official statistics, Shinto is Japan's largest religion, with more than a hundred million "adherents," a number that amounts to well over 80 percent of all Japanese. Yet only a small percentage of the populace identify themselves as "Shintoists" in questionnaires conducted by the media or by Shinto organizations. This reflects the fact that while many Japanese participate in shrine events and make use of the ritual services offered by shrines, only very few regard Shinto as their religious identity. Seen through the eyes of the average patron of shrines, Shinto remains a very vague concept. Shrines may be categorized as Shinto and temples as Buddhist, but this distinction is of little consequence to those who make use of their services. It makes sense to distinguish shrines from temples, but with few exceptions it is impossible to differentiate between "Shintoists" and "Buddhists." Of course, the fact that Shinto hardly functions as a religious identity does not mean that shrines are taken lightly...Some 70 percent of all Japanese visit a shrine in the first days of the New Year...Shrines perform three categories of rituals. One is personal prayer for individuals or families...the first shrine visit of a newborn baby...a shrine visit to celebrate a child's third, fifth, or seventh birthday. These rites are observed by some 50 percent of Japanese...Festivals tend to be run by the local community rather than the shrine priests...Typical of shrine festivals is that they engage large parts of the community...some 25 percent of Japanese participate in a local festival...All events of this kind form part of a single calendrical cycle of seasonal festivities...that brightens up the routine of a busy life. For most "religion" and "faith" have little to do with it.[10]

This does not mean 100 million Japanese aren't Shinto. It means that the figure (70-80 percent) is closely supported by some type of adherence to Shinto ritual which we classify as a religion using official statistics. The data needs to be put back in the article with a note saying that the number of Shinto practitioners are much smaller than the official number. We don't delete information simply because we personally disagree with it, or we find other sources that criticize it. We cite both numbers, the official one quoted by the U.S. State Department and the Japanese government, and the numbers of people self-identifying. I don't know why you thought it would be acceptable to delete official numbers. That's just irresponsible and reflects bad judgment. Viriditas (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I haven't ignored a single thing in my entire six years"

Yes you did, otherwise you'd have realized the evidence against you, you also ignored the 1500 million Buddhist figure in the "list of religious populations" you didn't lower it to your figure of 100-500 million Buddhists and yet you did so in the "Buddhism" article, why? Why do you agree with these same sources that I cited to you earlier and yet refuse to admit that there are a billion Buddhists out there?

If "For most "religion" and "faith" have little to do with it" then why do you want to claim that Shintoism has anything to do with all these religious rituals or visits to the shrine? I myself visited a Muslim synagogue, and a Sikh Gurdwara, and a Buddhist temple, and that proves what? There are many tourists who do that, there are also many people who pratices meditation, yoga, and tai chi even though they aren't Buddhist, Hindu, or Taoist. Your practices don't necessarily indicate that you believe in a certain religion, I take a bath, does that mean i'm Shintoist? I rinse my mouth, does that mean I'm Shintoist? No, just how far are you willing to take this?

"This does not mean 100 million Japanese aren't Shinto"

Yes it does, even your own source says so

"The modern Japanese take religion calmly, even indifferently. Like Christianity in Europe, Buddhism in Japan has left behind a rich heritage of art, architecture, music and literature; but as a vital religious force it is spent. There are new sects that appeal to a vociferous minority; and Zen still exerts an influence over a thinking few. But in general the role of Buddhism in modern Japan is merely to bury the dead and to keep their graves. It may seem paradoxical to say this of a religion that still has a priesthood, possesses scriptures, conducts regular services, maintains magnificent temples and large estates, administers schools and engages in social welfare. But among the intelligent young in Japan it is far more common to find a burning faith in Marxism than in Buddhism. Buddhism has become a matter of rituals, of services and of festivals; it has long since ceased to have an organic life of its own. "

Source: Cavendish, Richard (ed.). Man, Myth & Magic: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Supernatural (vol. 11). New York: Marshall Cavendish Corp. (1970), pg. 1492-1494.

But wait, that's mostly about Buddhism. What about Shintoism? Japan had an irreligious majority ever since the ninteen seventies so Shintoism kinda disappeared in that period, you can't be an atheist or adhere to no religion and yet believe in Shintoism like believing the emperor is of divine ancestry, worshipping trees, mountains, and rivers, and believing in several benevolent gods

"Another survey, conducted in 1979, asked people if they professed any religious faith. Affirmative replies [were] to 33.6%. " Most who said yes identified their faith as Buddhist (78.4%). Only 3.3% identified their faith as Shinto.

Souce: Reid, D. "Japanese Religions " in Hinnells, John R. (ed). A Handbook of Living Religions, Penguin Books: New York (1991) [reprint; 1st pub. 1984], pg. 379.

"perhaps three-quarters of the Japanese people would tell you that they do not believe in any given religion. But they still follow religious customs of old. "

Source: Dolan, Jr., Edward F. & Shan Finney. The New Japan; New York: Franklin Watts (1983), pg. 49.

"Less than 25% of the population [of Japan] professes any religion, & although new sects periodically flare up, materialism & religious indifference seem to have infected a people who less than 50 years ago were willing to sacrifice their lives for their faith. "

Source: Pastva, Loretta. Great Religions of the World; Winona, Minnesota: Saint Mary's Press, Christian Brothers Publications (1995) [9th printing. 1st printing in 1986], pg. 130.

"But the majority of Japanese--some 70 to 80 percent--even though carried on the rolls of one or more religious body, do not contsider themselves believers in any religion. "

Source: Reischauer, Edwin O. The Japanese Today: Change and Continuity; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (1988), pg. 215.

"In independent surveys where people are asked to state their own religion, there are the approximate results: Shinto 2-3%; Buddhism 20%; Christianity 1-2%; a new religion 10%; no religion 65% "

Source: "A Brief Survey of Religion in Modern Japan " (1998). By Paul A. Shew

"In Japan, although Shintoism claims almost 100 million adherents and Buddhism nearly 90 million (more than the total Japanese population), polls indicate that fewer than 30% of Japanese people have any real religious beliefs. "

Source: Wolff, Michael. Where We Stand: Can America Make it in the Global Race for Wealth, Health, and Happiness? Bantam Books: New York (1992). Pg. 205.

According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 65% of those in Japan do not believe in God. According to Demerath (2001:138), 64% do not believe in God and 55% do not believe in Buddha, however a very strong majority have engaged in some form or Shinto, Buddhist, or Japanese folk/cultural ritual, such visiting a shrine or temple on the previous New Year’s Day.

And to top it all off According to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion, but most follow “the customs of Japanese traditional religion.”

How can you be a Shjintoism if the vast majority claim no personal religion and don't believe in the gods? How can 100 million be Shintoists when fewer than 30% of Japanese people have any real religious beliefs Realize this already, the evidence is strongly against you. But at least I can say this, I admire your patience and yor willingness to talk, I'm surprised you didn't edit things yet Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Missionary has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Oda Mari (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this part:

"Tenrikyo has a definite evangelical missionary ethic and has achieved considerable geographic spread, with members organized in about 40 countries. Formal conversion to and affiliation with Tenrikyo are signified by an initial ritual called a "Besseki pledge"^[1]"

Is that what you don't want? Still though, you didn't have to delete all of the Tenrikyo missions section, what problems do you have with this for example:

"The first missionary of Tsukihi was Miki's daughter Kokan who went to Osaka as a street-missionary^[2]" Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to re-write the whole thing. Generally, if the first line of a huge swath of new text clearly came from other web site, the rest is suspect, and subject to removal. Most of us are too busy to check each and every sentence; the burden is on the contributor to make sure the text is clean. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I still don't get it, what was the copyrighted part, the adherents.com link? What didn't you like? Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I googled for the first sentence you quoted and found it verbatim on other sites, and those other sites clearly didn't get the sentence from Wikipedia. Copying and pasting text from other sources can't be done here. You can quote other sources, but that wasn't done in this case. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then all I have to do is to attribute it to adherents.com right? No problem Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're doing it again. I picked a random sentence in the text you just inserted: "The first missionary of Tsukihi was Miki's daughter Kokan who went to Osaka as a street-missionary". This is copied verbatim from another source. You didn't quote it, you just used it as if it was original text on Wikipedia. This is a copyright violation of the source you copied it from. I'm going to give you a few hours to fix it all up, to make sure ALL the text you write are your own words, not the words of others. Otherwise the whole passage will be deleted again. It isn't enough simply to paraphrase either, if the text you end up with is fundamentally the same as the source with just a few words changed. Copyright violations are a serious issue. See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors' rights and obligations. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of "like" or "do not like". These are the obvious copyvio material you added to the article.

1. "Tenrikyo has a definite evangelical missionary ethic and has achieved considerable geographic spread, with members organized in about 40 countries."
2. "Tenrikyo has spread throughout Japan and also to various countries around the world. At present, there are about two million followers and more than 17,000 churches. Moreover, churches and mission centers have been established in about 30 countries around the world."
3. Tenrikyo membership exploded it's early years and leveled off in the mid 1900's. According to the Ministry of Education, there were 2,350,000 members and 15,000 churches.
4. The first mission in Australia was established in 1978 in Boronia Road, Boronia. This mission later became the first Tenrikyo church in Australia in 1989.
   Oda Mari (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Jainism in Japan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stickee (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The observation that many towns do not have a Christian church may be true. It is, however, like most negative inventories, not reportable. They don't have major league franchises either. Many US cities do not have Shinto temples. We don't take negative inventories for these reasons. It would clutter the article with irrelevancies. It also suggests that Japanese towns should have Christian churches; that they don't is somehow, abnormal. This is a bit WP:POV and WP:BIAS. Please do not reinsert this without rather elaborate discussion and agreement on the article's talk page. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to South Korea has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean you can just delete the whole thing, couldn't you just put them in quotation marks or something? I searched the net quite alot for some useful information about this, please consider what other users have been through, don't just delete everything, I wasn't even finished with the article Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, anyone can delete material that violates Wikipedia policy, which yours did. If you don't want material deleted, don't plagiarize it, it's really that simple. Don't make excuses; just follow the rules.

I see that you already have been warned other times in the past about this. If you continue violating copyrights in this way, your account will be blocked until you demonstrate that you understand our policies.

And by the way, while an edit like this one you made later is not technically plagiarism, it is very poor writing. Simply plunking a quotation into the middle of an article with no context and no language to integrate it with the context (e.g. "According to X...") makes the article read in a choppy way, and quoting material for no reason (i.e., when there is nothing special about the wording itself, and you could just as easily rephrase the material in your own words) is extremely lazy writing and borders on violating fair use policy. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you can delete it, but couldn't you also put it in quotations mark or something, even if some user's edits sucks, he has put some effort to finding the information, please consider this Yes, I have been warned, but nobody explained exactly what exactly I was doing wrong and how to correct it. I have a certain piece of information that I want to put on wikipedia, so what to do with it, put it in quotations mark? I did just that and even then you critisized me. What am I supposed to do? Change the wording of the source a little? If you'll tell me what's wrong exactly then I'll try my best not to break the rules Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Kim-Zhang-Hong. Regards, Viriditas (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an invitation to join the discussion? Anyway I think I made quite a couple of good contributions, the "list of religious populations" and "missionary" was very incomplete before I came along, I also think I made positive contributions to Jainism in western countries among many other articles, I have shown you the mistake you made on the "Buddhism" topic, and the way I see it you want to ban me on religious topic because I sometimes don't add quotation marks and write as if I'm the source and claim these findings are my own(though how can that be when I'm actually referencing the source?). Anyway are religious topics the only problem? I'm interested in religion and think it's an important subject but I have also written on secular topics such as about the Anime "Zakuro" why are you specifically opposed to me writing on religious topics? Please don't just delete everything just because I edited it, rather than removing everything please fix it, at least I cited my sources, and it took me some effort to find the right sources so please consider the effort I have put into this Thanks for considering my opinion Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to work with you and I recommend you seek out a mentor and/or adoption. The problem is that it is very difficult to communicate with you as you either don't understand what is being said or you do, but ignore it and engage in POV pushing. For example, look at your edits to Buddhism.[11][12] We don't use Google search results as sources for anything, and you appear to be POV pushing your opinion about the number of Buddhist adherants above and beyond the reliable secondary sources on the subject. Even the Encyclopædia Britannica separates folk religion from Buddhists. If you want to convince me, find reliable secondary sources for your position. One way to do that is to discuss it on the talk page using one or two of the best sources you have. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't my user page clear enough that I'm actually looking for an adoption? English isn't even a first or second language to me but I think it's fair to say my english is pretty good, if you explain to me what exactly is wrong then I won't repeat it and it won't happen, I don't like it when my work just gets deleted without second thoughts Actually wikipedia does use Google search, the place where I learned that google books actually exists is through wikipedia, before that I had no clue there was such a place. Besides, it's not like all of them are google books, you didn't absolutely have to delete everything, what's up with that attitude in wikipedia?

Secondary sources? Did you just admit you're using secondary sources? Anyway Britannica isn't the only source in the world and does Britannica claim that these folk adherents are exclusively Taoist/Confucianist/whatever and that none of them are Buddhists? I really don't get this, many muslims in Senegal mix their beliefs with indigenous beliefs, as do Christians in Cuba and Haiti among many other places, but people refuse to acknowledge that many Chinese mix Buddhism with Taoism/Confucianism/Folk beliefs, why? You're giving special treatment

I discussed this and I showed you my sources, it's over. Now it's your turn to convince me, start with explaining what do the Chinese adhere to? If you think that Buddhists number only 300 million then you have to draw the most ridiulous conclusions like that there are more Christians in China than Buddhists, you call this reliable? When did this happen all of a sudden that China stopped being a Buddhist majority? Start with explaining this if you're really willing to work with me instead of engaging in edit wars Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Kim. I asked you for reliable secondary sources and you failed to produce any. I'll take this to arbitration if I need to, Kim. Viriditas (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other users agreed that these sources were reliable, they were the ones that edited it to the +1 billion estimate, I just returned it back. Why didn't you say that none of these were reliable back at the time, why do you come back some half a year later and bring up this old topic again. Also define "secondary source" what must there be for it to be a secondary source, the name of the author? The year it was published? The means by which the author got to the conclusion? Or is it that to you anything that says that there are over a billion Buddhists simply isn't a source?

I actually don't know many people here for us to choose a mutually chosen user, besides, what's the point? The sources are there and they're clear, what's the problem with them? Why do we need to choose some user to give us his opinions, I don't care about opinions, refute my main argument, you're ignoring China, you're ignoring that many Buddhists mix their beliefs with other religions, and you're using organizational reportings, the most unreliable method for counting adherents, and that why the claim that there are 300M Buddhists is certainly false, declare it a lower estimate if you really want to, but don't pretend as if it's the only estimate Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, you either provide reliable secondary sources when requested, or you don't edit. It is that simple. Your recent edits amount to a misuse of sources and POV pushing. It needs to stop, now. Viriditas (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease revert warring at Buddhism. The appropriate place to discuss contested edits is the talk page, not edit summaries. --Danger (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Buddhism, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've once again added unreliable sources to Buddhism. These include the following in whole or in part:

• The complete book of Buddha's lists--explained By David N. Snyder - This is a self-published book. It does not meet our criteria for a WP:RS.
• Religioustolerance.org - The references offered at RT quote Wikipedia.[13] This is a self-ref and unreliable.
• The First Post, a free and independent daily online news magazine, whose author quotes a figure about Buddhist adherents without any reference, likely taken from Wikipedia or RT above.[14] Again, a self-ref.
• Non-Resident Nepali Association - a website hosting a speech. Not a reliable source.[15]
• Educational Leadership - a 1954 article.[16] Out of date, and misused to push your POV. This is called original research and is unacceptable.
• Google Search - A Google search pointing to an 1884 book.[17] Unacceptable misuse of source. You can't just perform a Google search and use the result as a "source" to prove your POV.
• Google Search - A Google search pointing to many things, all of which are irrelevant.[18] Misuse of primary sources.
• Google Search - A Google search pointing to a book published in 1910.[19] Unacceptable misuse of a primary source.
• Buddhism: Religion in Korea - An interesting book about Korean Budhism published by a reliable source,[20] but looking at it in depth, it appears to be written as a promotional hagiography. It would have to be used very carefully, and with attention to any references used by the author. I looked for references in the book and found none. This tells me it is more of a textbook than a secondary source, and we generally avoid tertiary sources like textbooks.

See the Buddhism page discussion, don't discuss this here. You requested a reliable source and I gave you one, you yourself admit the "Buddhism: religion in Korea" is a reliable source, so it's over Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the above discussion you said you were still interested in adoption. You may not be aware that someone tried to adopt you last year. I'm guessing you don't have your user page on your watchlist; please add it. Because you did not respond to the previous adoption offer, the link was deactivated. Because you have recently expressed interest, I've added it back. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone offering me adoption in my user page Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He means that he has reinstated the link requesting adoption. The offer you did not respond to is on this Old revision of User:Kim-Zhang-Hong. You can add your own user page to your watchlist by clicking the star along the top of your screen, or by clicking here. Then visit Special:Watchlist periodically to see if the page has been changed. Watchlists are described in greater detail here.

I would also suggest reading talk page guidelines and talk page help if you haven't already. /ninly_(talk) 04:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Religion in Japan has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Oda Mari (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I undid your edit. Please see WP:INTEXT and WP:MOS. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your links aren't helping, I don't see the problem Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your concerns to the talk page. Your edits and references are currently in dispute. If this continues, I will once again bring this to the administrator's noticeboard and ask for assistance. You do not appear to understand what is required. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, repeatedly edit warring your changes into the article against three different editors with the response "deal with it" is completely unacceptable. If you continue, I will ask for restrictions on your account. You were previously asked to seek out adoption or mentorship, and you did not followup on it when it was offered. That will not look good when you are brought back to the noticeboards. Please read what has been said about your edits on the talk page. Your response indicates you don't understand it. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said deal, I said tell me the problem and I'll try to fix it, fix things instead of deleting everything. You're the only one who keeps engaging in edit wars, the other users behavior is rather kind actually and accepting of new ideas. I didn't notice when this adoption happened, that wasn't because I refused Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, your response tells me that you don't understand what is being said on the talk page. This has been going on for a long time now, Kim. You were asked not to add poorly formatted references to the talk page, yet you continue to do it, refusing to learn how to properly format them even after it has been explained to you and links have been presented showing you how to do it. You've also continued to add disputed content, over and over again. There isn't a single GA or FA article on Wikipedia that includes a simple statistic with 20 unformatted citations in the lead section. You've also failed to add proper punctuation. Since you don't seem to understand what is being said on the talk page and you have trouble learning, I'm going to ask you now to stop editing the Buddhism page until you can first propose an edit request on talk, and work with others to make your edits acceptable for inclusion. Repeatedly telling other editors that it our responsibility to follow you around and fix your edits is not acceptable. Please do not continue to edit the Buddhism page until you have shown that you understand the problem and you are willing to learn how to edit appropriately. If you can't do this (and you've been asked many times now) I will ask the community to remove your editing privileges. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. You seem like a well informed and open minded and impartial person. There are those who try to control what is directly accessible in the Dog meat article, by deleting my logical and relevant linking of the Horse meat article in its See Also section. I can understand their need to maintain a certain level of white pride or Eurocentric propaganda and Asian cultural-secessionism by disassociating certain European(and their close-ally/favorite Asian) taboo meat cultures/nations to make an outright disconnect in these taboo meat articles relative to dog meat, which most likely have their largest proportion of consumers in such places as China, Korea and Vietnam: whereas in cat and horse meat consumption, the partiality toward the eastern/central Asians to that of non-Asians is far less(and complicity with Europeans far more) and thus the "Wikipedia controllers" for white pride(and pride of their closest allies and "friendlies"), work to make or delete such edits. But this really has nothing to do with proper presentation of white people's eating habits or how the eating habits of western democracy's closest ally nations should be seen. I do not object to other cultures or ethnic groups eating culture or heritage, and the inclusion of horse meat in the en.wikipedia.org Dog meat See Also section should constitute a consistent and simple American(not necessarily objective) and all English-language reader-observation of relevant facts and comparative study to the culture of eating these animals to which American and other "democratized" people should objectively examine without feeling humiliated, like how the editors and Dog meat article-controllers here are doing here by omitting direct reader-access to these relevant articles for comparative examination. Of course, as difficult as it may be for them to accept, the link to horse meat and other relevant "taboo meats" will be included in the See Also section. KulqihanAtqa (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Chinese folk religion, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's unreliable about my book "Chinese gods" and why is a source that speaks only about Taoism rather than Chinese folk in general is more reliable

Your links are of no help, I see nothing wrong Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kim-Zhang-Hong, I notice you've had a request for adoption up for a little while. If you would still like to be adopted, can I suggest that you contact one of the editors on the list of adopters? As Wikipedia is a volunteer project and many adopters are busy, a more pro-active approach would mean that you are more likely to be noticed. If you've got any questions, feel free to leave me a message. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Hakaru Masumoto requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. AKS (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this account belong to you? Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BuddhistPHD? Not mine Kim-Zhang-Hong (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]