User talk:Prasangika37

Please comment on Talk:Padmanabhaswamy Temple

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Padmanabhaswamy Temple. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of people excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dorje Shugden controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dorje Shugden controversy may have broken the syntax by modifying 6 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Croquet Museum

Interesting comment on the Creation Museum talk page. FYI, see National Croquet Center. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Nizari

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nizari. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Dorje Shugden controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden controversy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:ISO 8601

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:ISO 8601. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Historicity of Jesus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dolgyal

Both Phabonkga and Trijang Rinpoche referred to Shugden as Dolgyal.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send sources my way. Either way, its clearly regarded as derogatory in the present day and you know that! That is the sad thing about you using it in discussion. It appears to be intended as hurtful. Generally, people who speak negatively about Dorje Shugden practice will use the term, while people who are either neutral or favorable towards it will just use "Shugden" or "Dorje Shugden". Prasangika37 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is like when Cullen328 told Kjangdom "advise you to avoid criticizing other editors for having a widely respected POV, when you so obviously have a highly controversial POV". There is nothing derogatory about Dolgyal.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of confused about where this conversation is going or where it came from. Hope you have a good night! Heading to bed now. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation came from you claiming Dolgyal is derogatory on the DSC talk page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, its regularly interpreted as derogatory in modern times. Were you not using it to try to get a rise or be offensive? It was just casual or what? Prasangika37 (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ed Miliband

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ed Miliband. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of Patriarchs of Alexandria

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Patriarchs of Alexandria. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity of Jesus

It doesn't make much sense for you to clog-up the talk page with posts complaining that I'm clogging up the talk page. In any event, about Jeppiz being upset: If he were really that thin-skinned, he would have never survived on WP as long as he has. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @Fearofreprisal:. I wish I didn't have to comment on what you were saying! I don't deeply care about it either way, but just think its a good idea to try to stay a bit more on-topic, especially in a contentious or busy section like HOJ. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2014 military intervention against ISIS. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Syrian Inclusion

Hi, I noticed that you registered a vote here and here. Because DocError is informing some editors who have participated in RfC's on Syrian inclusion, I'm letting other editors who voted in the RfC's know about this RfC here where all Syrian government forces is addressed here. -

Please comment on Talk:Ed Miliband

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ed Miliband. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:United States pro-life movement

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States pro-life movement. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SAY

Read WP:SAY VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Arius

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Arius. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sprawling

So you admit the NKT article is "sprawling"?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree it could use tightening up! But just not completely dismantled seemingly out of nowhere. Lets chat about what we can improve.. :) Prasangika37 (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's voice

Almost all reliable sourcing used in Wikipedia, is in Wikipedia's voice. This is a nonsensical argument. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With controversy articles in particular, controversial statements are generally supposed to be quotes as we have discussed before. In addition, it is an incredibly unverifiable statement by Thurman with no citations or proof and is in an op-ed of all sources. Incredibly low quality for an article that is trying to use high quality sources. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:VNT. Its not up to you question reliable sources.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its an op-ed ... Prasangika37 (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UGC: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RSOPINION Its an opinion piece. A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion Prasangika37 (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UGC: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is you can use it.. just not in Wikipedia's voice. Thank you for compromising. I appreciate it. The article is starting to become overwhelmingly inclusive of Thurman's quotes in op-eds when there is a huge array of sources available, maybe 20 different academic voices in peer reviewed works. I hope you can stop including him in such large numbers when there is quality material available. Prasangika37 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that YOU are the one who included Thurman's new piece first? See this diff.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV noticeboard

See new discussion on NPOV noticeboard HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My PC must be broken

It said you thanked me for an edit.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@VictoriaGrayson: I did thank you for an edit ;) I liked it. I was thinking that section was a load of something just yesterday so I am glad you gave it the boot so I didn't have to! Prasangika37 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need publisher, publishing year etc.

You are not using proper references. You need publisher, publishing year etc. Also try to use SFN.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What example are you talking about? Are you saying you should revert me because of this? Prasangika37 (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent edit to Dorje Shugden Controversy VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will insert the rest of the stuff. Sorry. I am not sure the best way to use SFN. Whats the particular benefit of it?? Prasangika37 (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Tibetan Buddhism

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tibetan Buddhism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your thanks :) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help required on Samadhi article

Hello Prasangika. thanks for you message on the Samadhi talk page. I am not very sound in terms of the Wikipedia policies and have started contributing very recently. It would really be very helpful for me if you can guide me on how to deal with the conflict on the article. Please have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samadhi&oldid=634699711. This is what the article was like after the information being submitted by various authors. This has got references form the books/articles publish by renowned publications and very few are from the primary sources. But instead of making changes one by one after discussion, all the information was removed by Jonathan. My main aim was to educate the readers with the physical aspect of Samadhi as it is considered by many to be just a mental state and nothing more. Also, by reading the current information being shared by Jonathan it seems like he is to much influences by Buddhism and is intentionally trying the shadow the Hindu perspective of Samadhi by referring it to be just a copy of the Buddhist texts. Please guide.UnusualExplorer (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this thread to Talk:Samadhi#Help required on Samadhi article. Let's continue the discussion there. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ayurveda

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ayurveda. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Day of Ashura

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Day of Ashura. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See new discussion

See HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is RFC?

Where is RFC?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what RfC? Such requests need to go onto the talk pages of the article in question. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need publisher, publishing year etc.

You are not using proper references. You need publisher, publishing year etc. Also try to use SFN.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@VictoriaGrayson: Will include later, sorry abou that. Thanks for being patient. Whats the deal with SFN ? why is it better/whats the deal with it? Prasangika37 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, and @VictoriaGrayson: if you click on the "cite" button in the editing box and then pull down the "templates" menu, you will get a handy box that does all the formatting if you just enter the info. I highly recommend using the citation templates. Also, if a parameter box has a magnifying glass by it, (ISBN and DOI parameters only, I think)clicking that icon will make the template go fill in ALL the needed parameters for you, though you might have to edit them a bit. Now, second question: The deal with sfn is that, if you can master the syntax when you initially enter the source material (and it works best used in conjunction with WP:LDR, it makes for a super-cool way to format long and complex articles that use the same source multiple times (particularly books where you are citing multiple pages). The folks I collaborated with on William Robinson Brown (one of "my" FAs) helped me to do that article with sfn, and the beauty was in being able to quickly and correctly cite different pages from the same source, which included some books, long articles and two videos. Everyone feel free to look at that article and "borrow" the formatting. I have to admit that if I don't have books and am mostly citing news articles, I tend not to use sfn, but I still DO use LDR for long articles so that I don't have to go hunting for misplaced refs every time there's a big edit or restructuring. (See, e.g. one of my other FAs, California Chrome for use of LDR with standard citation templates but without sfn.) My take is that sfn is the best method where a lot of your sources are books. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Joshua Jonathan put all the books as SFN in the article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw and VictoriaGrayson: Thank you both. I started by using the citation template at the top and fixed a handful of my crappy citations ;) I'll attempt to get into the SFN world slowly, but at least for the time being I will use the template and try to make things more clear/thorough. Sorry again. Funny how 6 months or so and I'm still a total amateur in many ways! Wikipedia has a lot to learn I guess. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here eight years, I'm still learning new stuff. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Thats helpful to know so I don't get discouraged. Also hopefully people can be gentle when I still (regularly) make mistakes. Prasangika37 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tech mistakes and POV-pushing are not quite the same thing, just saying... ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 23:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:U.S. Holidays

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:U.S. Holidays. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Hubert Walter

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hubert Walter. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Abortion debate

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Abortion debate. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Islam

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islam. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please establish Dalai Lama is the head of India

Please establish Dalai Lama is the head of India like Obama is the head of America.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a conviction for the Dalai Lama?

Is there a conviction for the Dalai Lama?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooh I've missed you!!! ;) @VictoriaGrayson:Prasangika37 (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a conviction for the Dalai Lama?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow, dearest friend. The conviction I see is in the scholarly work. Clear 'conviction' found on the CTA website or Lopez's report of the overt ban of Shugden practitioners from government positions, eh? Prasangika37 (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the Dalai Lama was charged and convicted?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying there is obvious, proven evidence, unlike the murder shenanigans which is nothing more than Ad Hominem. Prasangika37 (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentence is not even close to being grammatically correct.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhh you ;)Prasangika37 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Christ myth theory

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Christ myth theory. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New Kadampa Tradition. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: Please see the talk page. Also please look at the changes I make next time instead of just arbitrarily reverting them. They were different changes than the previous reversion, thus its not the same edit. Prasangika37 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Landmark Worldwide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Landmark Worldwide. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Kokuchūkai

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kokuchūkai. Legobot (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting sources

Matthews states that the murders have not been linked to the New Kadampa Tradition. This has nothing to do with eastern Shugdenpas.
Ardley says "This led to a massive outcry from Shugden supporters, particularly in Britain. The Dalai Lama was accused of religious intolerance and provided an opportunity that was not missed by Bejing, who used the dispute as a further reason to denounce the Dalai Lama."
Chryssides says "The dispute between Kelsang Gyatso and the Dalai Lama admits of no obvious resolution. The Dalai Lama stands accused of restricting the religious freedom..."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VictoriaGrayson: Hi, this is a misrepresentation of these sources. There has been no trial regarding the murders, no names identified, and there are not quality RS in regards to the accusations. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are your own sources. I agree your sources are "not quality RS".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Great Deception

I just saw that according to what I see here the book is available under a Creative commons 3.0 license, which means it could be added to wikimedia commons and wikisource. From what I remember, if one work from a publisher of this type is available under such a license, others often are as well. I figure you might be the person who knows best about what sources exist, but, if you want to upload them, I can try to help in the proofreading and maybe wikilinking of the works on commons. Drop me a message on my talk page here or at wikisource if you do, because my watch list is really long and I have in general been doing more over at wikisource anyway lately, and may not see a response on this page. John Carter (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a few of the benefits might be that the documents there aren't .pdf or similar, but just straight text. Once there, the wikisource document(s) could be linked to in the "wikisource" template which is at the bottom of some articles, like as one of the links at Queen Victoria. It also would, if done right, probably be linked to from a number of pages, making it a comparatively high search result, although, admittedly that might not be that much of a gain over its extant sites. For the book, maybe, it might not be that much of an advantage, but for any other works in the PD or Creative Commons which might be available, if the appropriate categories and internal links are created and maintained, inclusion there might be a way to make those materials more easily available to people looking for works on the topic in general. The main advantage for inclusion of pretty much anything at wikisource is that it tends to be a virus-free site, and a generally known virus-free site, which contains relevant documents. And the rendering it into full text would make importation easier into some content at wikipedia. Honestly, for the specific book, none of it may be that beneficial, but creating a "portal" over there for related content of a virus-free kind might make it easier for anyone interested to find relevant material. Probably not much of a benefit, but it would increase availability at least a little. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "New Kadampa Tradition page usage of "Cult" in Lede". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 April 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MEDCOM

You might also notify the other individuals who have weighed in on the various articles over the years, although HiLo is apparently retired, and ask them if they see any other questions to be addressed, like perhaps the amount of weight to give the various opinions on Shugden or any other related matters. Basically, if MedCom does accept the case, it is probably the best place to hash out all of the arguments at once. John Carter (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing I can think of would be to (1) start a list somewhere of all the issues involved with the content, defining them as clearly as possible, with an attempt to have them all addressed at the same mediation at the same time, (2) invite anyone and everyone who has ever been involved in the content to take part in the mediation, so it isn't as dependent on a few individuals, and maybe even file comments at a noticeboard for input, and (3) get all the sources you can think of lined up. This might involve going to the Resource Exchange for any content that is available on the subscription databanks as well. Ideally, maybe, doing that last item first, and finding what the relevant reference sources say in articles on those topics, and when they were written or published, would probably be the best first step. You might also, as an early step, leave messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group for any input from knowledgeable outsiders before the mediation starts, in the hope that maybe some of them might take part in the mediation as well. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning New Kadampa Tradition page usage of "Cult" in Lede, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Should "Cult" be used in lead of the page about a Buddhist tradition, the New Kadampa Tradition". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 April 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Should "Cult" be used in lead of the page about a Buddhist tradition, the New Kadampa Tradition, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Talk:Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Church of the Firstborn of the Fulness of Times. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Barelvi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Barelvi. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Free will

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Free will. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (architecture). Legobot (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Soka Gakkai

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Soka Gakkai. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ayurveda

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ayurveda. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Soka Gakkai

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Soka Gakkai. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Vithoba

Hello user, I have came here from Wikipedia:Feedback request service‎ from Religion and Philosophy section. You are requested to give your views on proposed move of featured article Vithoba to Vitthal. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 17:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request Service

Hi Prasangika37! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
Paste {{Frs user|Prasangika37|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name subscribed to the FRS, you may be receiving this message on your new username's talk page still. If so, make sure your new account name is subscribed to the FRS, using the same procedure mentioned above.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]