Mitsube

you have undid my edits calling it unsourced and distracting. Well i think you need to check your sources before making correcting or undoing other's work. please check the symbol for the holy word shri with any historian and they will tell you the same that has been added to the page. The word shri connected to the Goddess Lakshmi, and hence represents respect, esteem, wisdom, light, wealth and fortune! Shri is the sacred sound of cosmic auspiciousness and abundance in Hindu religion. please clarify what is your problem with the changes i have made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citysky (talk • contribs) 06:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

You undid my edit as "unproductive". I think that is not correct: the original sequence described Mindfulness Meditation, then it described Concentration meditation, then there was a paragraph on Walking meditation which describes clearly a Mindulness technique. I rearranged the paragraph so that it followed the general description of Mindfulness Meditation but preceded the Concentration Meditation paragraph. I do not agree that this is "unproductive" - rather, it avoids confusing someone who might read the section quickly and assume that Walking meditation is an example of Concentration meditation.

I also tried to add an example of Concentration Meditation, in the same way as there is already the description of Walking Meditation as an example of Mindfulness Meditation. You have removed this too as unsourced: please can you explain to me what I need to do to explain the sourcing, since I included a link to Passage Meditation which is the type of Meditation which this example describes DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be promoting a modern form of meditation developed by a modern scholar. This is not what wikipedia is for. If you wish to give an example of concentration meditation then the obvious choices are mindfulness of breathing or concentrating on "Om". Mitsube (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mitsube. You will be surprised (as I am) to know that I would like to thank you (for a change!) for your edit of "Karandavyuha Sutra". I think you were right to remove that tag which said not enough sources are cited. You are correct: we are fortunate to have even one major study in English of this scripture, as it is little known in Europe and America. Thanks, anyway, for getting rid of that rather unjust tag. Best regards - Suddha (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mitsube,

I noticed that you undid my criticism-related edits to Buddhism and science (diff) and Faith in Buddhism (diff).

On Buddhism and science, I added the following section:

However, Buddhism, much like many other Spiritual organizations, holds various beliefs on rebirth^[1] and Parinirvana^[2] that are not verifiable by the scientific method.

and you later removed it stating: (These websites are not reliable. Please see WP:RS. Feel free to remove poorly sourced or unsourced material.)

Quoting from WP:RS,

As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

it appears that unpopular sources are not welcome in Wikipedia (which, of course, shows that not all facts can be found in Wikipedia for not all facts are based on popular opinions). Thus your removal of the link to the actualfreedom.com.au page is justified.

However, your removal of the entire passage containing links to Spirituality#Relationship_to_science, beliefs, rebirth and Parinirvana are not justified by your Edit summary. It is entirely appropriate to cite parts of a doctrine that do not fall under the scientific method on a page that compares that doctrine and science. I suggest you to put it back, or provide reasons for deleting it.

On Faith in Buddhism, I added the following section:

While Buddhists consider their faith to be not blind, there still are elements of the Buddhist philosophy, such as rebirth and Parinirvana, that are taken for granted without an empirical evidence^[3].

and you later removed it stating: (This website is not an academic source. Also parinirvana is just the death of an arahant, and there is scientific evidence for rebirth.)

As the statement "This website [wikipedia] is not an academic [Conforming too rigidly to the principles (in painting, etc.) of an academy; excessively formal.] source" is inapplicable to the edit made, then your reason for deletion essentially boils down to "there is scientific evidence for rebirth". I'll draw your attention to the following quote in Reincarnation research:

The most obvious objection to reincarnation is that there is no evidence of a physical process by which a personality could survive death and travel to another body

I suggest you again to put the edits back to where it belongs.

- Nearfar (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to your address your statement "(...) parinirvana is just the death of an arahant". To quote from Parinirvana:

the ultimate state of Nirvana (everlasting, highest peace and happiness) entered by an Awakened Being (Buddha) or "arhat" (Pali: Arahant) at the moment of physical death, when the mundane skandhas, the constituent elements of the 'bodymind' (Sanskrit: namarupa) complex, are shed and only the Buddhic skandhas remain (...)

As you can see, it is not "just" the death of an arahant.

- Nearfar (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The lack of physical mechanism currently known to science doesn't mean it doesn't happen. You are ignoring the actual evidence compiled by professors of psychiatry that there is rebirth. Also regarding the "Buddhic skandhas" that is in one Mahayana text. It is not what the Buddha actually said. Also please be aware that wikipedia uses academic sources as stated in WP:RS. Mitsube (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Rebirth is factual. — Esteban Bodigami Vincenzi 16:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I need your help with two articles. The primary article is Lalitavistara Sutra. The secondary article is The birth of Buddha (Lalitavistara). A merge request was initiated some time ago, but I'm not sure if it is necessary. But as you can see, it lacks references, necessary categories, etc. Viriditas (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know much about this sutra unfortunately. I will see if I have any suggestions. Mitsube (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yikes. Maybe we should ask Yellow Monkey. Mitsube (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mitsube, I just created these:

• Category:Buddhism articles needing non-English scripting support & specialist attention
• List:Buddhism articles needing non-English scripting support & specialist attention

How do you recommend I get them appropriately placed and communicated?
Blessings in blood
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
NB: In the above discussion the 'bodymind' (Sanskrit: namarupa) complex is my work. I am not attached to the fruit of my activity but gee it is warming to perceive activity fruitful.

Just start using them as appropriate and people will notice. Mitsube (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Just to mention that I added to the discussion of this article today

Frank Walsh (1962) (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I notice that you have recently merged the Nirvana Sutra witth the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana ~ which actually seems just takes it back to where it was originally. Anyway, I have no problem with this per se, but I note that in doing so you seem to have lost the entire Page History for the article in its "Nirvana Sutra" incarnation. There is a lot of important information there, so do you think you could see your way to merging the Page History as well or making it otherwise accessible ? It is important to know who has done what. Thanks -- अनाम गुमनाम 23:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

— Esteban Bodigami Vincenzi 16:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

hi mistsube. long live wikipedia and wikipedians. so thanks for ur contribution in wiki. hey friend mitsube i have cheked that dhammachakra in indian nation flag is called ashok chakra or dhamma chakra of buddhist faith, and dr. bhimrao ambedkar is tried his best to select in nation flag. so i think that's information is right. thanks. sorry for late respose dear friend.namo budhha. --rajvaddhan (talk)

hi mistsube. Samkhya is correctly written in Sanskrit as साङ्ख्य and not सांख्य. Instead of using the anusvAra ( अनुस्वार ), it is a tradition in Sanskrit, to use the last letter of the same varga ( वर्ग ) as the succeeding letter. In this case, the letter ख belongs to the क varga, and hence the last letter of this varga, namely ङ has to be used while writing the word. Please see other examples such as - तन्तु, बन्धन, सम्बन्ध, किञ्चन, कण्ठ and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.173.40 (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This recent question at the wikipedia refdesk may be up your alley: Buddha, Barack Obama and a dead fly. Abecedare (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that was interesting. Mitsube (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some of your changes were good, but I couldn't agree that you should chop out the whole section explaining all the different types of Yoga meditation. Without that the section provides no real information at all. It was properly referenced. There were some critically analytical comments about bhakti yoga and kundalini yoga, its true, but that was to ensure a balanced perspective and to be in accord with the neutrality policy rather than present the information in aproselytising way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fauncet (talk • contribs) 07:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've reported you for Vandalism of Hindu meditation section (gave prior warning). You continue to delete large sections of referenced text. You seem to have an ideological agenda about Hindu meditation beginning with Buddhism and you don't seem to be an expert (lack knowldge that different types of smadhi are described in Patanjalis Yoga sutras-have you read it?)I'm not a Hindu but I think their case should be accurately putFauncet (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Samadhi states were discovered before the Buddha, as I recently added to other articles. Regarding the YS, the fact that you don't know that this was written hundreds of years after the Buddha is evidence that you should learn more before you try to inform others. Mitsube (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The buddhism comment about Christianity was properly referenced. Are you trying to create an encyclopaedic entry or run a private agenda?Fauncet (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unencyclopedic speculation. Mitsube (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I just wanted to point out that Tathagata is only used in reference to Sakyamuni. It is the name he invented to refer to himself. I don't know if you put the reference in originally but if Dr Peter Harvey states that Arhat and Tathagata are synonymous he is certainly mistaken! 81.109.10.218 (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC) the unknown soldierReply

That is not true, and moreover whether or not it is, it is verifiable: WP:V. Mitsube (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article that I created mya interest you from Buddhism perspective.--Anish (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

—Esteban Giuseppe Bodigami Vincenzi 16:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've blocked you for 1 hour for edit warring at the obvious place. It was going to be 24h but I relented. Consider this a formal warning. Oh, and the accusations of vandalism don't help William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for relenting. The user is removing massive amounts of sourced content with no justification. Isn't that vandalism? I would appreciate your judgment of this matter. That is why I thought that my revert was acceptable.

Still looks more like a content dispute to me than anything else. If you really think that a user is vandalising an article repeatedly, you really ought to be reporting them at WP:AIV I would have thought (though I don't frequent that so I could be wrong) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

As I mentioned, the user is posting to the talk page. However his posts do not explain the deletions as you can see if you read them. So it looks like a content dispute but the user is not actually explaining the dispute. So I myself do not know how to proceed. I have repeatedly asked him to explain himself but it has not worked. Mitsube (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

My IP is still autoblocked from the 24 hour block which was changed to 1 hour. Help! Mitsube (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Someone took care of it. Mitsube (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the problem. If this is vandalism, you want AIV. However, I think it is more likely a content dispute, in which case you want WP:DR William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I draw your attention to your insertion of borderline PoV statements into Buddhism, and your misleading summary of the 23rd, in which you use the phrase 'per talk'. Your only edit to talk on or around that date was not related to the passage you altered, nor was the existing discussion related to it. I would have put the edits themselves down to poor judgement, but that leaves the summary unexplained. Attribute the views you are entering into the article with a single named expert of note whose views represent a consensus among scholars in the field, preferably with quotes. If this is done without prevarication, it should be sufficient to remove the bias. Anarchangel (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I posted on the talk page a long time ago and waited for response. If you had a problem you should have responded then. Read [1] this section and the next one in the talk page and check the sources yourself if you suspect me of anything. I assure you there is no prevarication. Mitsube (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your edit removes a key point made by Wainwright in his article on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The point being, not only that "If the Brahman has no properties....and cannot therefore be understood as God", but also that this is consequently a "rejection of theism". The source is not a questionable website, but a respected online resource where "all entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board", and is also hosted by a very reputable university. The Viveka-Chudamani link was indeed broken - please see Wikipedia:Dead external links policy for appropriate action: do not simply remove them, but repair them. Tip: It is unusual for URLs to end .htmm, when you see this it probably indicates a spelling mistake, (.htm and .html are far more usual). The quote was included in Wainwright's article and is also reputable, if you would prefer another translation of the Vikeka-Chudamani for the same chapter and verse, that is a different matter. - --Evenmadderjon (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The sentence I removed was sourced to the broken link, not the Stanford site. Also, Advaita does have a notion of (illusory) creator God in it. This should be added. Mitsube (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you had taken the trouble to look at the Stanford source, you would have seen that point that you removed was found there. The author uses the quote from the Viveka-Chudamani, so I thought I would be helpful and source that too. Please don't edit before you have checked the sources. The role of God for Gaudapada and Shankara can certainly be addressed with even great detail in the article, but it should not be achieved by just deleting sourced points we don't like.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Next time just list both sources after the sentence. If as sentence is sourced to a particular source, if the source is problematic the sentence can be removed. Mitsube (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am putting the above article for FA review. I have added Buddhist criticism of Jain Karmic theory to make it NPOV. Also the Jain view on intention is compared with buddhist view. Suggest you glance over these sections and give your suggestions, if any. --Anish (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have read two other criticisms of the Buddha. If I remember the first one correctly, he says that if present suffering is determined by past karma, then Jain ascetics must have the worst karma of anyone because they suffer greatly during their ascetic practices. In Buddhism, past karma only produces tendencies rather than events, and there are also four other categories of causes of suffering. There is one other more technical criticism that I don't remember. It is from the book David Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. The University Press of Hawaii, 1975, the first 50 pages or so. I don't have the book at the moment but if you want I can get it. I think the section as it is is already balanced. Mitsube (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am sure that there must have been many more criticisms. But my aim is to put up a balanced view and dont want an over kill as it will remove focus away from the main point of the article. It would be interesting from academic view what other criticisms are there. But, if you think that the sections are balanced and depict the Buddhist views fairly, then I don't want to disturb this setup. Anyway, thanks for your review.--Anish (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be sock of Maleabraod. I have complained to Yellowmonkey.--Anish (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you know much about the early schools of Buddhism? The Theravadin are only one of in excess of 18 schools. The first turning were codified in many languages not just Pali. If you are focused on the first turning then be aware of its historicity. The Theravadin like the Gelugpa have been given too much attention or have been overly favoured and foregrounded in English discourse. The Buddha taught and recommended teaching in the vernacular which most definitely was not Classical Sanskrit. Indeed he was reacting to the spiritual authority in large enshrined by the Sanskritic tradition. Shakyamuni was an iconoclast. The reasons why Shakyamuni favoured the vernacular are similar to the Protestant Reformation and the move away from Catholic High Mass in languages removed from the understanding of the people. Accessibility! Sanskrit is a control, a control in the scientific sense. A tool of calibration in a complex linguistic environment. That is how Sanskrit works in the milieu of the Dharmic Traditions as well as how it works in Western scholarship and indeed Dharmic scholarship in all languages. Sanskrit forms the nexus of orientation.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Rudra79 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)You are unjustly removing my editing of Brihadaranyak Upanishad. You are biased against this text it seems. You have not read Brihararanyak Upanishad in original. You are merely writing the unverified claim that parts of it were written later. Please be aware that Patrick Olivelle's claim is a mere claim which is not proved. On the contrary, if you read Brihadaranyak Upanishad in original Sanskrit, you can verify it yourself that Patrick Olivelle's claim is wrong.I've re-edited it again. Please do not remove the editing this time. I've not made any unverified claims. I've merely pointed out that Patrick Olivelle's claim is incorrect.Reply

 

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jim Tucker, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Tucker. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Artw (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Nothing in the enlightenment account of the Buddha refers to two-truths. It refers to three knowledges." Hi there Mitsube, what was this in relation to?! 20040302 (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is in relation to the article. The Buddha's enlightenment stories never mention such philosophical things as "two truths" or "emptiness of essence". The Buddha was concerned with spiritual practice and philosophy is ancillary to that. The whole "emptiness of svabhava" thing came at a later time in a different context, when it was used by Nagarjuna solely to refute heretical or non-Buddhist views. Mitsube (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. I have responded to this on the Pratītyasamutpāda talk page. (20040302 (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC))Reply

Hi, thank you for reviewing and reverting my edit on article Gautama Buddha, Link - [2]. However I strongly believe that my edit was constructive and there deserves a line in the introduction section which relates God Buddha to Hinduism. Gautama Buddha is _not_ a minor figure in Hinduism, I had to read a complete book about life of Gautama Buddha in my early years of school, as an example to start with. I have been through your user page and contributions and have concluded that you have much more knowledge than me in this article, and so I leave the decision to you. However in my opinion my edit should be restored. Vikrant42 (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vikrant42. The issue is one of giving information the proper amount of importance. Gautama Buddha is a minor figure in Hinduism. Does he figure in to any Hindu rituals? He is a very minor figure in Hindu mythology. In fact in the Puranas, as the wikipedia article says, he is only said to be Vishnu who incarnated in order to delude people away from the Vedic religion. I mean if he were a more important figure then mentioning it in the introduction would be better. When I have read scholarly accounts of the Buddha's life and teachings they don't discuss how he is viewed by Hindus. It seems to be a minor point. You may have read a book about him at school but what does that have to do with his place in Hinduism? What do you think? Mitsube (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

He was himself a Hindu before founding Buddhism, I believe (see Shakya). Anyways, that doesn't bring any importance to the fact about him as an avatar of God Vishnu. However, if it is about his importance in Hinduism, we had some Buddha Purnima day in school every year considering that I've been to a very Hindu school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikrant42 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

In terms of the principles of scholarship I think it is a minor point. Also regarding whether the Buddha was "Hindu", his society was not run according to the caste system, and seems to have been on the outskirts of Vedic culture. The myths about his pre-enlightenment life are not accurate. They are late compositions in the Buddhist corpus. Modern Hinduism is very different from the Brahmanical religion of the time of the Buddha: "... to call this period Vedic Hinduism is a contradiction in terms since Vedic religion is very different from what we generally call Hindu religion - at least as much as Old Hebrew religion is from medieval and modern Christian religion." See Stephanie W. Jamison and Michael Witzel in Arvind Sharma, editor, The Study of Hinduism. University of South Carolina Press, 2003, page 65. There were at that time no temples or bhakti worship or anythign of that kind. And the most prominent feature of the religion was animal sacrifice. Mitsube (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

This discussion clearly shows that I don't have a deep knowledge of my own religion. Thanks for enlightening. I need to learn more from Wikipedia, and it's good to have people like you here. Vikrant42 (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's not a speculative etymology, it's a sourced alternate etymology. My updates have been fixed to avoid altering already sourced content, but I still think that this belongs here because it establishes a fundamental difference between yoga texts (such as the Bhagavad Gita) that believe that practice leads to realization of a monist reality through the process of "yoking" mind, body, and spirit, compared to schools of yoga (such as those based on the Yoga Sutras) that hold that the practice of "contemplation" will help the yogi discern between dualistic prakrti and purusha. 75.82.41.117 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you tell me more about that book? It is a reliable source? Mitsube (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ashtanga Yoga Practice and Philosophy is used as a textbook for some academic classes on yoga. It's the most detailed Ashtanga yoga textbook there is (300+ pages), and it includes a comprehensive translation of the Yoga Sutras. While it isn't technically "peer reviewed" (that standard doesn't exactly apply in this field because the only peer reviewed papers on yoga tend to be on health effects), it's bibliography is 5 full pages of books on yoga, including several translations of the yoga sutra, the samkhya karika, and many commentaries on yogic philosophy. Also, I know internet sources are frowned upon around here, but here's a second source verifying the alternate etymology:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:k4v3rM0z7UQJ:www.archive.org/stream/EditorialsOfVedantaKesari-Volume49/VK_Volume49_djvu.txt+yujir+samadhau&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us 75.82.41.117 (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey mitsube..........thank you for your effort in saving the Tantra section of Yoga. Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 06:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mitsube, just cause you say so the representation of the 24 spokes does not change. The 24 spoke in the Dharma Chakra which is seen in the centre on the Indian Flag symbolise the 24 hours of the day and also there is a blue half moon at the end of each spoke.

Either you provide a proof signed by the Indian Government that the 24 spoke represents the Buddha teachings or correct the information in the page.

Xxmkcxx (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is already sourced to two reliable sources. Mitsube (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have given a third opinion at Talk:Maya_(illusion)#Third_opinion in response to a request for help after you edited the article. Please take a look at the talk page and discuss the problem with your fellow editors. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you removed my edit to the Upanishads page, saying that it was "Not a reliable source, nor a particularly notable opinion". I disagree that this is not a reliable soure nor a notable opinion: Easwaran's translation of the Upanishads is by far the most sold translation in the US, so I think it counts as notable; and he was a renowned and widely respected academic so I think reliable. Please let me know further your reasoning on this. Thanks DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC) p.s. you can find the texts quoted on Google Books, so they are verifiable and reliableDuncanCraig1949 (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since you have not (yet) replied to my message (above), here or on my talk page, I've undone your edit on the Upanishads page. If you're still inclined to delete it maybe we can have a discussion on it first, since I feel that your reason for deleting my edit was not warranted. Thanks, DuncanCraig1949 (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mitsube.

I'm trying to pull the yoga asana section together see my User:Trev M/Yoga_asanas_(page_merging_and_development) page, and the Mahamudra page - which you were the last editor on - is linked from there. The original contributer User:Zero sharp has been totally out of the WP picture since may 2009.

The intro section of that page is absolutely incomprehensible to me, as an intelligent person, reasonably aware of buddhism, even an occasional attendee of ceremonies. I come from the yoga asanas section, to discover what Mahamudra is and find it is a seal, in no specified sense.

....So I was wondering, do you have time/ability/inclination to make that intro paragraph more accessible to someone who is not a buddhist scholar - especially to a yoga practitioner?

Trev M (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

It has nothing to do with physical postures. Many articles on Tibetan Buddhism have been rendered incomprehensible by one editor, including, it seems, the Mahamudra article. It is a meditation tradition. The person to ask for help with that article is User:Sylvain1972. I don't know much about it. Mitsube (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - that gives me an idea what next. Maybe just one sentence to the effect that in the usage the page refers to, it is a meditation tradition would be a good start to the article! I'll investigate the connections between the yoga mudra and the meditation and attempt a disambiguation Trev M (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good! Mitsube (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reverting the article: I left it in a god-awful state. I just needed an embedded section from the history of the article and just repasted it in the main current article for fun. Thanks for monitoring mindstream and protecting my work, it is appreciated.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

there in nothing mention in mahabharata regarding this,the source that have you given does not tell about this.As i see in Kisari Mohan Ganguli version on scared texts "Vyasa executed the compilation of the Bharata, exclusive of the episodes originally in twenty-four thousand verses; and so much only is called by the learned as the Bharata. Afterwards, he composed an epitome in one hundred and fifty verses, consisting of the introduction with the chapter of contents. This he first taught to his son Suka; and afterwards he gave it to others of his disciples who were possessed of the same qualifications. After that he executed another compilation, consisting of six hundred thousand verses. Of those, thirty hundred thousand are known in the world of the Devas; fifteen hundred thousand in the world of the Pitris: fourteen hundred thousand among the Gandharvas, and one hundred thousand in the regions of mankind. Narada recited them to the Devas, Devala to the Pitris, and Suka published them to the Gandharvas, Yakshas, and Rakshasas: and in this world they were recited by Vaisampayana, one of the disciples of Vyasa, a man of just principles and the first among all those acquainted with the Vedas. Know that I, Sauti, have also repeated one hundred thousand verses".[1]there is no mentioning about jaya having 8800 verses in it. Now as u mention Mahabharata (shlokas 81, 101-102),then it is not present in Critical Edition of the Mahabharata by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune,most authentic version of mahabharata.However in gita press gorakhpur version A verse like this has been given,but its transalation given by you is wrong.Vyas actually said that there are 8800 secret verses out of 100,000 in mahabharata,which actual meaning is only known to him,sukha and sanjy.

can there is no answer to my question then what is the advantage of this discussion,i asked about jaya 8800 verse claim but no body answered,this shows a poor response activity from wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.35.192 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you're talking about, but I will take a look. Mitsube (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

i m saying that in mahabharata article of wikipedia,mahabharata 8800 verses have been claimed as "jaya" and we have give reference as Mahabharata (shlokas 81, 101-102),but i didnot find this verse in Critical Edition of the Mahabharata by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune,most authentic version of mahabharata.so it should be removed from there.

however this type of verse is given in mahabharata version by gita press gorakhpur,but its translation is not justify 8800 verse claim as jaya and also this is not a authentic version,all scientist and scholars use Critical Edition of the Mahabharata by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.36.221 (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is sourced to SP Gupta and KS Ramachandran (1976), p.3-4, citing Vaidya (1967), p.11. Check the last section of the article for what those books are. Vaidya is published in India, so maybe you can go check it out. If it does not say what is sourced to it, we can remove the information. Mitsube (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Rudrasharman has the text: [3]. You can ask him for the exact quote. Mitsube (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

First of all thank you for giving me responce,at least some true people are present in wikipedia,i watched the source that is mentioned now,in this source old version of mahabharata is used,there is no verse present in mahabharata that talk about 8800 verses claim in it,u can simply check it in any famous version like-Critical Edition of Mahabharata by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute[4]and SP Gupta and KS Ramachandran are not a very reknowned scholar the source which he have cited is also critical edition of bhandarkar institute,but i have 100 percent sure that no such claim has been done in Critical Edition of Mahabharata[5]. so i request you to remove this claim,or give me that verse claiming 8800 verse claim in any edition of mahabharata present now,i have already searched critical edition,ganguly edition,and also in wikipedia sanskrit text source.i am sure this verse is not present in any addition--115.240.54.72 (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC) it is simply his own theory that mahabharat having 8800 verse as jaya,but no authentic or reliable source have no such claim in it,i have also watched source cited by SP Gupta and KS Ramachandran does not talk about his claim,and mr rudrasharman never responsed me as i asked any query.--115.240.54.72 (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is the passage from Gupta and Ramachandran, p.4:

Scholars recognise at leat three redactions in the Mahābhārata as we have it today.¹ The first one is by Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa consisting of 8,800 verses, called Jaya; the second by Vaiśampāyana comprising 24,000 verses, known as Bhārata, and the third (the present form) composed of a lakh of verses called the Mahābhārata was given to us by Sauta. For convenience, a tabulated form of the redactions is given on page three (Table 1).²

1 Mahābhārata, Critical Edition, I, 56, 63

2 Vaidya, op. cit., 1967, p.11

where Vaidya's book is given in a footnote on p2: Vaidya, R.V, A Study of Mahabharata -- A Research, Poona, 1967. The biblio section of the Mahabharata article gives the citation as I verified it from the New York Public Library catalogs online. rudra (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

As an addendum, there may be a scholarly difference of opinion here. I've found two references that question the 8800 bit, which has been well-known for some time. If there is such a disagreement, we'll probably have to document it. rudra (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here,The question is not to take any reference from any secondry sources,but it is to take a reference from reliable and authentic source,the source here mentioned by rudra is very old and not so much appresiable.you can easly see that author used a old critical version of mahabharata in 1967,because at that time not so much research had been done on mahabharata.if you see new version published after doing a lot of research by bhandarkar institute poona on behalf of which old version Gupta and Ramachandran gave that statement.bhandarker institute removed that verse because it was not present in the most of manuscripts they found.i think you are well aware of bhandarkar institute poona,because most of world scholar use this version as a mahabharata reference.

• it will be preferable to use new research or article to show that claim,because no reknowned scholars like michael witzel have given such type of statement.so i will prefer you to use a secondry source from authentic and reknowned scholars,However if You want to keep this claim further in mahabharata article,then mention it seperately,because it contradicts with the statement that is given in 2nd paragraph of wikipeda mahabharat article,where it is claimed as 24000 verse as a intial version.
• now if want secondry refernce,then you can read prof. J. L. Brockington book on sanskrit epic[6],it is source given by Abecedare[7]

--115.240.86.179 (talk) 05:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is no contradiction. Mitsube (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

In newworld encyclopedia this caim has not been done however 24000 verses as a core portion is accepted.THey have also removed this 8800 verse claim.see [1].i think if you want to keep this claim behalf of some secondry article,then you should represent it as "At least three redactions of the text are recognized by some scholars",instead of "At least three redactions of the text are recognized".so that everybody may understand it is a scholar opinion,not a true fact in mahabharata itself.it will resolve the whole discussion.because it is represented with the facts that are saying about claims present in mahabharata. --115.240.69.242 (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,Mitsube! i finally got source which contradicts 8800 verse claim,see Jhon Brockington contradicts it in his article,in this whole topic is disscused that how some scholars misinterpeted 8800 verse as a sepereate 8800 verse version as "jaya".I think it is enough for now,because this source cleary shows 8800 verses as a misinterpetation by some poor indian scholars.I hope now it will not a problem to delete this misinterpeted information.Thank you--Mayurasia 11:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayurasia (talk • contribs)

Dude, my first edit (not a revert was on Feb 21). You reverted my edit twice, and I reverted your revert twice. So why are you leaving a 3RR warning on my page??? I mean, I did two reverts, but so did you. If you leave a 3RR warning on my page, logically you should also be warning yourself also!!! LuxNevada (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jim Tucker. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Tucker (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you persist on removing the cited inclusion to this article I will report you. Removing Desert Fathers just demonstrates your ignorance. I hold that your removal of my edits is not dispassionate but vindictive. What are you asking me to "please stop" by the way? Including cited and appropriate content? Instead of removing valuable inclusions your time would be better spent providing citations yourself. But you don't do that do you Mitsube? Why is that Mitsube?
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Giving random translations in a highly over-written style is bad for everyone involved. Look above on this talk page for someone who came to me and had to ask what Mahamudra is. He had no idea because you had written such a terrible introduction to the article. This is what you do all the time. And don't describe parallels to other religious traditions unless you have a reliable secondary source making the claim. For example, if you claim that the "Desert Fathers" had "non-dualistic" philosophy, you should have a source that makes that claim. Mitsube (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mitsube, you are mistaken. I haven't touched the Mahamudra article in over two years. Frankly, I am sure that is not all you are mistaken about either. Moreover, leave messages for me on my talk page because I don't necessarily come back to yours to receive a response. Kind of like looking for mail in the senders letterbox rather than the receivers. Back to the task at hand. What is the nature of your dispute and the justification for removing my cited Tibetan name for nonduality along with the Sanskrit in the Nondualism article?

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

1. It's the one in the Vinaya.
2. What else do you want to know? From memory I don't think it goes into detail.
3. There are actually quite a few Mahavaggas.
4. In case you were misled, I'm not the person referred to in that article.
5. Of interest to the article is the fact that the Vinaya actually makes provision for sex changes. If a monk turns into a woman, they are to be counted as a nun, but subject only to the shared rules, & vice versa. I don't know whether any secondary source has mentioned this, though.

Peter jackson (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll have a look & see what I can find. One point now is that there's a lot of duplication in the Vinaya, like the rest of the Canon. I'm not sure you could draw conclusions from that. Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The story in the Vinaya is that a pandaka became a monk & then went around propositioning monks, novices & laymen. The last put around rumours that they were all at it. Peter jackson (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Harvey, Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, Cambridge University Press, 2000, pages 415f:

The Buddha is said to have prohibited the ordination of any paṇḍakas, and required the disrobing of any who were already ordained, because of the following situation (Vin. I.85–6). A paṇḍaka monk approached some young monks, then some fat novices, then some mahouts and grooms, asking each in turn to 'defile' him. While the first two goups sent him away, the last group agreed to his request. They then spread it about that Buddhist monks were paṇḍakas, or that those who were not paṇḍakas nevertheless 'defiled' paṇḍakas.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Harvey, op cit, pages 412f:

While men and women can both be ordained, and attain enlightenment, even if they chnge sex, this is not the case with a hermaphrodite, one 'having the sexual characteristics of both sexes' (ubhato-byañjanaka).

In the Vinaya, it is said that because of the possibility of a hermaph[page 413]rodite enticing a fellow onk or nun into having sex, hermaphrodites should not be ordained (Vin. I.89; Vin. II.271). The Theravādin commentator Buddhaghosa held that there were female hermaphrodites, who could both impregnate and give birth, and male ones, who could not give birth, and that either type could be sexually attracted to both men and women (Asl. 322–3). In this he perhaps conflates hermaphroditism and bisexuality (Zwilling, 1992: 206).

Peter jackson (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

That citation is L. Zwilling, 'Homosexuality as seen in Indian Buddhist texts', in Buddhism, Sexuality and Gender, ed J. I. Cabezón, State University of New York Press, 1992. Peter jackson (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Harvey continues:

As to the karmic causes of hremaphroditism, in the seventh century Ta-ch'eng tsao-hsiang kung-te ching, composed in China or Central Asia, these are (for a man):

(1) Uncleanness where there should be reverence and respect; (2) lust for the bodies of other men; (3) the practice of lustful things upon his own body; (4) the exposure and sale of himself in the guise of a woman to other men. (Beyer, 1974: 53

Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Citation S. Beyer, The Buddhist Experience – Sources and Interpretations, Dickenson, Encino, California. Peter jackson (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Harvey resumes the paragraph after that quotation:

Just as Buddhaghosa sees hermaphrodites as bisexual, this sees homosexual activity as leading to hermaphroditism. The text holds, though, that such results can be avoided if a person has deep repentance and faith, and builds a Buddha image.

Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Final paragraph of section:

The Milindapañha sees hermaphrodites as among those who are 'obstructed' and so cannot attain understanding of Dhamma, even if they practise correctly. No reason is given, but the others who are also obstructed are paṇḍakas (see below), ghosts, one of false view, a cheat, one who has done one of the five heinous acts, a self-ordained person, a monk or nun who has gone ovre to another sect, the seducer of a nun, one who has committed an offence entailing the formal meeting of the Saṅgha, and a child under seven years (Miln. 310). Apart from the young child, ghost and paṇḍaka, these are clearly thos ewith moral failings.

Peter jackson (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Before I get on to Harvey, I'll note that Keown, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Buddhism, page 683, says pandakas are "Apparently transvestites or male prostitutes". Peter jackson (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now, Harvey has 6 pages on pandakas (413-19), so I'm not going to put it all here. He starts with the literal meaning, eunuch, but then cites Zwilling (page 204) as saying the term is used metaphorically. That's page 413. Peter jackson (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

On page 414, he starts by mentioning the 4-fold Vinaya classification: male, female, both, neither. Then he cites Zwilling (page 205) as saying the Atharva Veda distinguishes pandakas from males & females, "and implies that they were transvestites". The grammar of Harvey's sentence doesn't make clear whether it was the AV or Zwilling that was doing the implying. Harvey goes on to report Buddhaghosa as saying both pandakas & hermaphrodites are determined from conception. He continues citing Buddhaghosa as listing 5 types of pandaka:

1. one who fellates a man
2. a voyeur
3. one who ejaculates by some means (unspecified)
4. one who, through karma, is a pandaka only 1/2 the month
5. non-male

Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

That list has run on to page 415, where he cites ZWilling's summary interpretation (page 205): "for one reason or another they fail to meet the normative sex role expectation for an adult male" (Zwilling's words). He then cites Zwilling as interpreting female pandakas as lesbians, but describes this as problematical. Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

On page 416 is the passage quoted above, and continues by saying they were "seen as some kind of promiscuous passive homosexual. He cites Buddhaghosa as describing them as dominated by lust, & Zwilling as describing them as "a socially stigmatised class of passive, probably transvestite, homosexuals" (Zwilling's words). Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

On page 417, he cites Buddhaghosa & Vasubandhu as saying they are obstructed from path insight. Peter jackson (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

On page 418 he cites sGam-po-pa as saying that they can follow the bodhisattva path (my italics). Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

On page 419 he cites the above-mentioned Chinese source as giving 4 karmic causes for being a pandaka:

1. castrating a man
2. laughingly scorning & slandering a recluse
3. transgressing the precepts through lust
4. encouraging others to do so

Finally, Harvey cites some modern Western Buddhists as saying that homosexuality results from being reborn in a different sex: a woman reborn as a man is liable to effeminacy. Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

As regards sex changes, neither Harvey nor Keown goes into detail. It may be that this is just an example of the Vinaya trying to cover all possibilities. Peter jackson (talk) 11:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's all I've found, but I haven't tried a thorough search. Those are just some handy sources. No doubt there are others. Peter jackson (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see wikipedia is still going as usual... Same people more or less? I have little time now~so won't be joining in for now. bye and keep up the good work. Greetings, Sacca 08:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you take a look a look at this request on my talk page or direct it to an editor active in the area ? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am not 'misreading' anything: the quotes I give on the buddha-nature say what they say. I do not twist them. Suddha (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mitsube, I think you are right on this issue (don't suffer heart failure in surprise!). I don't know if you agree, but having a whole section (as this article currently does) on the mental state of people who believe in reincarnation (e.g. believers allegedly take comfort from the idea of reincarnation, or require a sense of security from it) strikes me as very tendentious and not NPOV. What would these scoffers say about the Buddha? Maybe he too was in need of emotional comfort, and that is why he 'believed' in rebirth! Prof. Stevenson seems to have been a very sincere and careful investigator into reincarnation: I once heard a long radio interview with him, and I came away with the impression that he was a thorough and far-from credulous researcher into these matters. The attempts to debunk his work are really foolish, in my opinion. But the point is that the article is definitely skewed towards scepticism and debunking. What you have contributed has helped to inject more balance and accuracy into the whole piece. Best regards. Suddha (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ha ha! You are so right, Mitsube! Best regards again. Suddha (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Mitsube. You are making very good, pertinent points on the Reincarnation Research talk page and in the article itself. I would like to contribute more myself, but I'm hugely busy right now, unfortunately. It's rather frustrating .... Best regards. Suddha (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, the phrase in the lede, 'credulous research into reincarnation', is surely very biased and should not feature here, if it does not appear (or words to that effect) in the quoted source. It should definitely go if the idea is not expressed in the cited text. I have added a comment on this to the 'Kurtz' section. Best regards. Suddha (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The user is also ignoring the discussion of other changes and removing reliably sourced content. Mitsube (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

a really fudgy point, so I didn't want to engage it on the article, but really, shouldn't that be "Impermanence, suffering, and no-self'. not-self and non-self imply otherness. --Ludwigs2 13:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The point of the anatta teaching is disassociation. So it makes sense to me. What do you think of [8]? Mitsube (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I should be clearer. The self is a process constructed through craving for becoming (craving to be something), non-becoming (craving to lose some aspect of one's identity), and craving for sensual pleasures. However, the Buddha says that if we look at any of the aspects of this construct, it becomes clear that it is not intrinsic to the self: it is not really "I" or "mine". So it is not-self. By adopting this attitude, in a state of deep concentration or otherwise, the mind become liberated from clinging to those things it clings to to various degrees. Does that make any sense? Mitsube (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Greetings,

I have started a new Wikipedia WikiProject:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Yoga

I would love to work with as many people on this new project.

Hello Yoga Mat! That is a nice name. What aspects of yoga are you interested in?

Hello Mitsube - I like the social and community aspects - I like working with people from the whole spectrum - both secular and religious - I like to make connections with other practitioners.

The reason why I started this project is to try and provide high quality information about yoga with contributions from people that actually have an active interest in it. In terms of culture / philosophy / relevance I have been looking at the topics in the Hinduism category - but that is not able to properly hold topics about all the other traditions of yoga from other cultures - buddhism and the contemporary, western sports and fitness / fusion styles are good examples I think.

There are many others.

Yoga is so vast that it cannot be contained within one religious viewpoint or culture.

It requires specialist attention that only a project with (perhaps) specific task forces (eg. Yoga and Hinduism) that are able to deal with the many subtle and complex aspects of yoga is the only way forward.

I hope you will be able to help this project - setting up a meta banner and posting it on all the yoga topics and recruiting editors from the most diverse sections of the community I think are the first steps ?

Some featured topics on the project home page would also be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoga Mat (talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yoga Mat

Try not to add so many new sections in the reincarnation talk page if you're going to be asking related questions. It looks unprofessional and annoys people. If I were you, I would conglomerate those three under a single section banner. Silverseren^C 23:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good luck dealing with Verbal. The guy is totally biased and has no ethics at all. He is a Christian and finds any religious ideas that are in any way "New Age" (reincarnation, etc.) threatening. He is very persistent and won't collaborate with you at all. Editors like him are ruining Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.62.173 (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I assume that the Christian statement is from a long time ago. He seems to be very involved with the ideas of skeptics these days, and they are determined atheists. Mitsube (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, his professions/avocations as listed on his user page would seem to indicate that he should be an atheist, and I have accused him of that, but the page also says he's a Christian, and I've found talk of that on his talk page. On Wikipedia, both the Christians and the atheists call themselves "skeptics" and try to stamp out alternative views.

That he IS a Christian is actually quite amazing, since it is a highly illogical religion, and he comes across like Spock on steroids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.63.184 (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what Verbal's inclinations are (I try not to evaluate editors based on their beliefs), but the problem you will run across with him (at least in my experience) is that he only communicates by reverting and making absolute declarative statements. It's a bit like trying to deliberate with an angry adolescent, except he has the egoism of an adult. if he's disrupting a page, let me know; I'm happy to back up sensible editing against that kind of silliness. --Ludwigs2 15:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mitsube, I noticed that you'd been involved in some conflicts at the reincarnation page, and I admired your gutsiness in hanging in there. Good work! So I came here to offer a few words of encouragement, consistent with a userbox I remembered seeing. And I see that others have already been doing so! The user that who was(is?) attempting to revert good material on the reincarnation research page is also a user that I've encountered in the past. Indeed, in spot-checking his many thousands of references, I don't think I've ever seen an instance where he's composed a full paragraph. As others have said above, almost every edit he makes seems to be reversion or deletion of things he doesn't like. I've very seldom seen him seek to build consensus, although a barnstar of his suggests maybe he did once help broker a peace on a topic (was it gun violence?). Even so, though I've never had occasion to summarize my views to him directly, my experience is that he has sometimes engaged in tendentious editing -- quite often against alternative medicine or related theories. Such a tendency, I later recognized, often has the objective effect of harrassing or suppressing a potential economic competitor of mainstream medicine and its dominant constituents (e.g., pharmaceuticals and surgery). Of course, we are each supposed to assume good faith (WP:AGF) until such views become untenable. In your current case, since reincarnation is not a form of alternative medicine - at least not directly - perhaps you will have an easier task in prevailing. At any rate, you seem to be fighting an honorable and good fight, and doing a wonderful job. Hats off to you, and keep up the good work! Health Researcher (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think your assessment of Verbal is correct. I've never seen him write anything either. He only seems to tear things down. Another editor I encountered talks about "article building" on his talk page, but the environment on Wikipedia doesn't seem to support that. The rules seem to empower editors like Verbal who can only cut and criticize. It's my opinion that there should be a rule that says you need to know something about a subject before you can edit it. Such a rule would be hard to enforce, but it would serve as a restraint to editors like Verbal who edit articles (for hours and hours each day) that they have little knowledge about. As for assuming good faith, it was always impossible for me to do that because of his first action, which was to attempt a "stealth deletion" of the article I had created by redirecting it to another article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.51.190 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The "delete by redirect" is a common move of his. You guys shouldn't be discouraged. If someone does something like that, let me know, I will give my opinion on the talk page and help file a report if necessary. Keep up the discussions and report users who violate the rules and it will work out. If Verbal does again the things he did a couple of days ago (reported here) then I will report it to AN/I next time, like the admin suggested. Mitsube (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think you may be overoptimistic in saying it'll work out. Sometimes things work out; sometimes they don't. That's Wikipedia for you. It has no generally effective system for dealing with such problems. It all depends who feels like getting involved. Peter jackson (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You know, I've always felt there should be a noticeboard for this kind of thing: something where you could post any problems you're having with tendentious editors and neutral, uninvolved editors could come by in numbers to quietly revert the reverters, forcing them to discuss the issue in talk. kind of a "what's good for he goose is good for the gander" approach... I've hesitated starting it because trying to create such a thing will invariably create a major shit storm (mostly from those like verbal who use that tactic frequently themselves). Maybe one of these days. --Ludwigs2 23:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

But there are already such noticeboards: WP:NPOVN &c. The problem is that they don't actually work a lot of the time. People simply don't "come by in numbers", so policy remains unenforced & disputes unresolved. Peter jackson (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, I meant a specific noticeboard geared to bringing public pressure on behavioral issues. the current note boards are designed to discuss content issues, and users are usually more interested in restricting themselves to content discussions and leaving behavioral problems to other fora. A board dedicated solely to acting on behavioral problems (without references to actual content issues) might fill that gap. --Ludwigs2 15:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, that sounds a little like canvassing, which is considered edit-warring. Of course, Verbal and the others have their Fringe board which they post on when they want to gang up on an article. But when the supporters of an article do it, they are accused of edit-warring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.19.232 (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ludwigs, my point was that the existing noticeboards often don't work, so is there some reason to suppose this one would?

Noticeboards are an accepted part of the system & not counted as canvassing. Peter jackson (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

dunno.   the difference would be that participants on a noticeboard of that sort would be participants specifically because they want to use the weight of numbers to bolster consensus and civility and overcome tendentious editing; that would be be explicitly laid out in the board's statement of purpose. The hope is that it would attract a bunch of editors who are interested in behavioral problems on wikipedia, and who would be willing to discuss the correct approach in each particular case, and act collectively once they came to a decision about it. since there's no pretension that the board is trying to deal with article content editors would be less inclined to hold back because of substantive limitations (limited information about the topic, and etc). whether that's enough of a difference, though... --Ludwigs2 16:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

That sounds like a very good idea. I think it would be quite susceptible to false alarms, however. Mitsube (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

well, it would certainly have to be a discussion-before-action scenario. I'd want it to be more like a citizen's action committee than a mob of villagers with flaming torches. maybe I'll toss it out at pump proposals in a week or so, just for a lark; see what kind of reception it gets (right now is not good for me - got some people breathing down my neck). --Ludwigs2 21:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with much of what you say above. However, I'd point out that WP procedures already heavily emphasize behaviour over content. Administrators & arbitrators often enforce behaviour policies but not content ones. The system seems in practice to consider a quiet life more important than a better encyclopaedia. Peter jackson (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

well, the idea (which I happen to agree with) is that a calm, civil environment will allow for thorough discussion and agreement on content, which will produce better quality pages in the long run. Unfortunately, the rules around behavior are very badly designed and easily subverted, and so the system doesn't work anywhere near as well as it could or should. that's one of the reasons I've been thinking about this - it would be an informal way to put some teeth into enforcing behavioral issues, so that proper discussion can actually start to gain ascendency. --Ludwigs2 15:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that would solve the problem. It's not just a matter of people edit warring, being abusive &c. Propagandists invent all sorts of spurious reasons for giving prominence to their own POVs & denying it to others, or sometimes resort to unintelligibility, or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT &c. Unless the community is prepared to come & enforce content policy against that, or authorize somebody to do it for them, the problem will remain unsolved. Peter jackson (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I never said your addition wasn't important. I just pointed out that it didn't flow. I didn't delete it. I just moved. Can you offer a compromise? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

hope it's OK that i left a comment on the nirvana discussion page that i'd like you to take a look at. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.10.45 (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Note that your revert to the version of an article supported by an editor who is not active on the talk page could be construed as a tag teaming operation especially since you were misleading in your objections on the talk page of Reincarnation research (no reliable sources were removed). Actions such as this have lead people in the past to being blocked and banned from Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe that the user in question has posted there and made his opinions clear. You have yet to do so. Mitsube (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Your recent edit to the page Reincarnation research appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. [9] Neither Clarke nor Sagan called it "rigorous". ScienceApologist (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Responded on the user's talk. I am confused by this post. Mitsube (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:ScienceApologist. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Accusing an account of being used by two people is a personal attack in light of Wikipedia rules about sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Forgetting something you did 12 hours ago is highly suggestive. I don't believe it is a personal attack to suggest that it was someone else 12 hours ago. But I am sure you just forgot. Mitsube (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Reincarnation research, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [10] ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

That was an accident. You don't need to use these big notices all the time. Mitsube (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

[11] You just removed two more of my comments. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hopefully it is back. Mitsube (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just remember, that it would be faster for you to copy over the diffs I put in mine, instead of looking themup yourself all over again. I don't want you to spend too much time on this when we could be working on improving other articles. ^_^ Just let me know when you finish with it. Silverseren^C 02:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

User:Bigtimepeace says to just add onto my report. Silverseren^C 02:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are constantly misusing the term WP:REVERT and embarrass yourself by its overuse. A revert is a return to a previous version. Rewriting the article is not reverting. Changing it to something completely different is not reverting. There is such a thing as a "partial" revert, but your use of it in this fashion is both offensive and confusing. Please use a different word like "edits".

Also, you need to give a little more time before coming to the conclusion that I'm not using the talk page. WP:AGF would be good for you to read.

Finally, realize that a lot of your edits look spiteful and completely slanted. Try to avoid words that evoke a personal judgment.

Putting my best foot forward,

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply