User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Transcendentalism and Madyhamaka

Hey there JS. Did you ever study Madhyamaka? It's ironic that the Transcendentalists considered Kant to be a transcendental philosopher, while he's actually more akin to the Madhyamikas, who reject the notion of a transcendental reality. bets regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan! Sorry, I didn't mean to keep you waiting but I've been both a) busy for a couple of days, and b) well, I had to refresh my memory on Kantian philosophy a little bit :-) Anyway, I've studied Kant many years ago, and I got attracted to his approach as a bridge-builder between the rationalist and empirical schools of that time. To be honest, I don't really know about the connections between Madhyamikas and Kant. As I quickly had a look at Madhyamaka, it seems to me that the Kantian philosophy and the Madhyamaka philosophies both use the term "transcendental" but understand it a little differently. Whereas in Kantian philosophy it's thought that "das Ding an sich" cannot be flawlessly observed through senses, the Madhyamaka philosophy speaks for "sunyata". Well, if Kant also is pertaining to the idea of "sunyata" though, that's the fundamental question. I found a sub-section concerning Buddhism and Kant's transcendental idealism here, Transcendental idealism#Historical parallels.

A bit off-topic, but I am intended to read some of the works by Heidegger, a Western philosopher said to have studied the similarities of thought between Wittgenstein and Nagarjuna! Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." Well, I'd like to preserve a small caution whether it was Heidegger dealing explicitly with Wittgenstein and Nagarjuna or not, but I certainly do recall his name popping up in the context. Also a Google search[1] provides an interesting yield, on top of the results Bissell, Kelsie & Levenstein, Jacob M. 2012. Language and Emptiness: A Diagrammatic Comparative Study of Martin Heidegger, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Nāgārjuna Are you perhaps familiar with the relation between Wittgenstein and Nagarjuna? :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bible Belt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to Stephen W. Tweedie, the Associate Professor Emeritus at the Department of Geography in the[Oklahoma State University, the Bible belt is now viewed in terms of numerical concentration of the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

(Po) from Hanbok

The required quatation I believe would be "신라가 삼국을 통일하기 전인 648년(진덕여왕 2)에 김춘추(金春秋)가 당 태종에게 청병하러 가서, 장복(章服)의 개혁을 청하여 의대를 받아가지고 돌아와 관복을 개정하였다. 이것은 중국식 단령포로서 이후 조선 말기까지 관복이라 하면 이 단령포를 일컫게 되었다. 그러므로 우리 나라 포제를 논할 때에는 단령이 아닌 직령으로 이루어진 포의 변천을 알아보아야 할 것이다." It basically says Silla took a Chinese style clothing and made it Gwanbok. Therefore, Korea's style of Po that should be discussed is another style called Jikryung." Cydevil38 (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Cydevil38. Where should this quotation exactly be put? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Awarded for looking over Odin, an expanding article about a complicated and extensive topic. Thanks for assisting! :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Your edits

Where you unlink things or revert text? Are baffling. BAFFLING. I have no idea what your edit summaries mean; you don't seem to understand anything more than the most absolute literal meaning; you don't accept writing changes and revert them to an older wording, apparently "just because". For example, this revert unlinks "hagiography", not exactly an everyday word, and has the edit summary "Doesn't even mention Chan". You unlinked hagiography simply because that page doesn't specifically mention Chan Buddhism?!? This one reverts a link to an actual Wikipedia page that exists to discuss the Mahayana sutras, presumably because the text said "text" originally? It's a sutra. It's one of the most important Mahayana sutras. I just don't even understand why you seemingly pick random reverts half the time. Sea of blue? Sure. Common name? Sure. Those are mostly things I myself missed when trying to find the original sources for quotes etc., I totally agree. But other things... man, I just don't understand how you pick what you pick, because I find myself on your page asking you why on earth you reverted something. Ogress _smash! 20:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Also: that monk who is characterised as Khotanese? He's ethnically Saka, a people who ruled the Kingdom of Khotan. He wasn't just a former subject of the kingdom, he was a famously Caucasian-looking dude who was Saka-speaking. The sources always call him "the Khotanese monk" but that's their way of saying, "wow this guy was Western", which was prestigious at the time because it was a source of Buddhist teachers and sutras, as in this illo: linked to save page space Ogress _smash! 20:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Ogress, here's a short answer to the concerns you posted:

1. Hagiography: The text in the article said "According to Chan [[hagiography]]..." If you take a look at the destination article, it does discuss hagiography of many religions (cf. Hagiography#Eastern Orthodoxy), but not Chan Buddhist hagiography. In other words, the term "Chan hagiography" is currently linked from the middle of the term to mere "hagiography", an article that doesn't even discuss the specific concept to the smallest bit. Per WP:SPECIFICLINK, the current link falls under "unspecific" (cf. Icelandic [[orthography]])
2. Mahayana sutras: The text in the article said "A 5th-century Chinese [[Mahāyāna sūtras|Mahāyāna sūtra]], ''[[Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana]]'', describes the concept more fully..." We already have the most specific topic, "Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana", so there is no need to link to the more unspecific one, "Mahayana sutras".
3. Khotanese: The text in the article says "A later translation or reedited version was attributed to the [[Saka|Khotanese]] monk..." So if the source says "Khotanese", and if the source does not say that "he's ethnically Saka", why do you want to link it to "Saka"? The text says "Khotanese" and I linked to [[Kingdom of Khota|Khotanese]]; I don't think that edit was somehow illogical IMHO. If the source said, however, that he was a "...Saka monk...", then we could just simply write that he was a Saka monk and link to [[Saka]].

So no, my edits are not "random" as you said, but conform to WP:LINK. I hope this helps to clear things out. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Ogress, how familiar are you with WP:LINK? I just saw similar edits you made at another article, Dhammakaya Movement. Let's have a look at some of them:[2]

1. You changed "'''Wat Phra Dhammakaya''' is a Buddhist temple (''[[wat]]'')..." to "'''Wat Phra Dhammakaya''' is a [[wat]] (Buddhist temple-[[vihara|monastery]])..." We already have a link the most specific topic, "wat", which gives the description: "A wat (Thai: วัด wat Lao: ວັດ vad, Khmer: វត្ត wōat) is a monastery-temple in Thailand, Cambodia or Laos." Now you added link to "monastery" when the specific term is actually "Buddhist temple-monastery" (wat, which is already linked).
2. The previous edit continues, changing "...in [[Amphoe Khlong Luang|Khlong Luang District]], Pathum Thani Province north of Bangkok, Thailand." into "...in [[Khlong Luang District]], [[Pathum Thani Province]] north of [[Bangkok]], Thailand.". Again, the most specific link would be "Khlong Luand District". Moreover, now that's a WP:SEAOFBLUE violation.
3. As a result, out of nine nouns/concepts in the sentence, five are now wikilinks.

So I am very sorry if you find it "baffling where I unlink things". Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I wish to clarify I was in bad temper and was not as ... sweet-tongued as I should like to be. I apologise for my somewhat aggressive post. And I greatly appreciate your explanations, which now make a great deal of sense, even if I have a rebuttal to some of them. I do appreciate that and the work you do - I certainly don't object to all your unlinking, as I also end up unlinking many things although I do not drive at it the same way you do as my issue is more with jargon, bad refs and bad cites.

1. Sometimes, I think, you are very good at the rule but not precise at the principle: that the everyday reader should be able to understand the page even as your edits do a lot of work to help with that. For example: If I did not define wat, that sentence would be very hard to understand. For example: "Wat Phra Dhammakaya is a wat (Buddhist temple-monastery) in Khlong Luang District, Pathum Thani Province north of Bangkok, Thailand." I defer to your judgment on the placenames: Khlong Luang District should in fact cover the situation in terms of modern placenames. However, I changed the start of the lede because it was both wrong and not helpful: a wat is not a temple; it is specifically a combination of vihara and temple, as the page on wat so explains in detail. Wat is sort of an English word, in that I've seen it used quite a bit, and yet it is clearly insufficient for the average reader to leave it undefined. And yet a vihara should provide another nugget of incomprehensibility, so I should not leave that unlinked; I piped it because it was in the lede, where "temple-monastery" seemed to suffice, bluelinked to avoid confusion. Hence: "Wat Phra Dhammakaya is a wat (Buddhist temple-monastery) in Khlong Luang District, Pathum Thani Province north of Bangkok, Thailand." There are three words in that title that have their own wiki page: wat, phra and dhammakaya (under the Sanskrit spelling). But what was important was to describe the topic: it's a wat, a temple-monastery. The original write-up had it backwards, writing that it was a temple-monastery and then sticking wat in parens, which makes no sense at all. We should write the unfamiliar word and then define it in parens, not the other way around, or you confuse the sentence.
2. As for the monk: Saka contains a section on the Kingdom of Khotan. Our job is not OR, but we have to walk a fine line. When they changed Khotan to Hotan, they also redefined Khotanese from an ethnicity - a subgroup of the Saka, or Eastern Iranians - to nothing. (And the Khotanese language was also moved to Saka language.) We do not have license to literally change him from an ethnic Khotanese East Iranian to just a Saka - that's overstepping, especially given that he is incredibly famous as "a Khotanese monk". Yet linking him to Kingdom of Khotan - it was a polity, not an ethnicity, and it was on the Silk Road, meaning it was full of people from everywhere, not just Khotanese-the-ethnicity. And Khotan now goes to "Hotan", precisely defined in terms of the modern People's Republic (for some reason I do not understand, but I cannot stop every edit to spend a week on a suggested move argument). Therefore: SAKA. It contains a section on the Kingdom of Khotan, it is the Eastern Iranian ethnicity by definition, and voilà! We have a solution, even if in the future a better one presents itself. In such obscure topics, there is often terrible and dated coverage, and we must find a way to communicate the information. We can't just say "he's a Saka", because that was a broad term, like saying a Moroccan is "an Arab". (Incidentally, Moroccans do mostly reject the term "Arab".)
3. As for Mahayana sutras, I contest strongly that the topic at hand is familiar enough that linking simply to Awakening of Faith suffices. It discusses their historicity, their importance in the Buddhist Canon, and other things that Awakening of Faith does not, which is why it was in that sentence in the first place. Rather than remove the terminology, I chose to define it by link, as we are an encyclopedia. Unlike in the place names above, I do not think the two are sufficiently close.
4. As for hagiography: man, that's not an everyday word. We can't just leave that in there and not link it. And the very second sentence of the lede of hagiography is, "Other religions such as Buddhism, Islam and Sikhism also create and maintain hagiographical texts (such as the Sikh Janamsakhis) concerning saints, gurus and other individuals believed to be imbued with sacred power." Just because no one has gotten around to writing a section on Chan hagiography doesn't mean we aren't going to link it! I certainly can't link it to namtar (biography). There's no special page for Chan hagiography, but we cannot expect the average reader to know the term hagiography. Just unlinking it is not helping. Ogress _smash! 20:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Ogress. It's alright, apology accepted. We all get into bad temper from time to time :-) I also appreciate your work a great deal; if I didn't, I wouldn't ask you to help with MOS:JAPAN and MOS:CHINESE![3] ;-) Anyway, I'm glad I managed to explain some of my edits better. Please find below my "short" replies:

1. Wat Phra Dhammakaya: You are right, a wat is not a temple, but nor it is a vihara: it's combination of those two. I don't think we should link a combination like that to a mere vihara from the middle of the term. I still think that [[wat]] serves as the most specific link, but we could still have the current "Wat Phra Dhammakaya is a [[wat]] (Buddhist temple-monastery)..." that you added, but without linking to [[vihara|monastery]] I think. We could also complement the entry by "Delahunty, Andrew (23 October 2008). From Bonbon to Cha-cha: Oxford Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases. OUP Oxford. p. 373. ISBN 978-0-19-954369-4.", a source used already in the wat article.
2. Khlong Luang District, Pathum Thani rovince north of Bangkok: I am afraid here we disagree the most. We have examples about this at WP:LINK: for example WP:LINKSTYLE ([[Riverside, California]], not [[Riverside]], [[California]]), or WP:SEAOFBLUE ([[Irish Chess Championship]], not [[Ireland|Irish]] [[Chess]] [[Championship]]).

   Actually, there was a discussion about similar issue some months ago[4] where the user wanted to link [[Upper East Side]], [[Manhattan]], [[New York]]. So I think we should only link the "Khlong Luang District" (alone or piped with "Pathum Thani Province north of Bangkok") per the global consensus in our guidelines.

3. The Khotanese monk: Okay, maybe it's just my lack of knowledge on the topic, but so far it seems to that the section Saka#Kingdom of Khotan only says: "Main article: Kingdom of Khotan". And that's why I redirected the link there (since apparently it's the only content of that sub-section you mentioned). And if we "do not have license to literally change him from an ethnic Khotanese East Iranian to just a Saka", then why are we linking to [[Saka]] (as it really doesn't have a section on Kingdom of Khotan) :O ? Please bear with my lack of knowledge. Also, the only mentions of "Khotanese" / "Khotanese language" seems to be about "Saka language", as you already mentioned.

   I understand that Kingdom of Khotan did not include people of the Khotanese-ethnicity only, and that it included a whole variety of different peoples. But given the aforementioned, I thought that'd be the closest match.

4. Mahayana sutras: I was about to make a reference to "chain linking"[5] (not an official WP policy or guideline, but a pretty good essay by User:Tony1, IMHO). However, I noticed that neither does Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana link to Mahāyāna sūtras, nor does Mahāyāna sūtras link to Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana... :O Anyway, I was meant to say that, not just being the most specific topic, the article [[Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana]] is already chain linking to [[Mahāyāna sūtras]], but apparently that's not the case. This is a bit off subject, but I think that's something we should try to complement to the both articles. :-) I'll try look for some sources myself as well.
5. Chan hagiography: I agree that it's not an everyday word. But what I am worried about is that the article where it's been linked, it's not really discussing the topic (Chan hagiography) at all ("unspecific" per WP:SPECIFICLINK). For a mere definition of "hagiography", I think wiktionary would do better. Or if we want an article about "Chan hagiography" at some point - let me clarify that I am not a big fan of red links - I think a red link would serve the purpose better as well. Currently, I think, we are linking a rather peculiar term to an article that in reality doesn't really even deal with it.

Although we might not agree with everything, I hope we are okay now? :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, because I agreed with your analysis in regards to the geography and yet you write, "I am afraid here we disagree the most." For the monk, it was that there is no current appropriate category (Khotanese people). They're a distinct subgroup of the Saka. As noted at Saka language, "The two kingdoms differed in dialect, their speech known as Khotanese and Tumshuqese." This is unsurprising because only specialists handle this kind of thing usually. However, there is no Khotanese people (or Khotanian people - don't ask, but Khotanian is a thing apparently), so Saka it is. I don't think we can just skip linking, either, because it's pretty obscure.

We could link to Wikt but I usually find that it's better to use a different word or link to wikipedia. In this case, I still think hagiography is valid because most people are going to be like, "what's a hagiography"? and it does mention Buddhism in the intro. I'll admit I'm surprised hagiography isn't covering non-Christian stuff barely at all because half of what I do is remove hagiographies from Buddhist Hindu, and other religious wiki pages. (Between OR, cultish behavior and original source overreliance...) Ogress _smash! 20:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Ogress: Sorry, my bad. I totally misread your post with respect to the geography. Indeed, we seem to agree the most when it comes to that.
• For the monk, if he indeed is Khotanese, a distinct subgroup of the Saka, I still don't understand why we are not linking to Kingdom of Khotan. At least the article would discuss about "Khotanese", unlike the article Saka which only lists a {{Main}} template: "Main article: Kingdom of Khotan".
• I also usually find it it better to link to Wikipedia, but when it's appropriate. The wiktionary would answer the reader on "what's hagiography", whereas the actual article would be only really tangentially related to the subject, as it does not really discuss the actual topic, "Chan hagiography", the biographies of Chan saints/leaders. Therefore, it doesn't really provide any valuable information, something that wiktionary didn't provide already, for the reader. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Korean Buddhism: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. ~ Rob^Talk 01:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Rob. I am not all for warning templates immediately after possible vandalism emerges, since we are running a risk not to WP:AGF on the editor. Also, if the editor is new on Wikipedia, it'd be better not to WP:BITE since the warning templates may appear somewhat frightening or unwelcoming to the new user.

If the problems persist, then a message on user's Talk Page might be necessary, although I prefer personalized messages (if things ain't that bad already). Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I certainly can understand not wanting to use the standard templates, and I applaud you for being concerned about biting the newcomers. On the other hand, if we leave nothing on a talk page, then even the editor with the best intentions will make the same mistake a second time. If nothing else, it's always a good idea to leave a quick personalized message explaining that you reverted an edit and offering a hand in helping if they need it (or pointing them towards appropriate resources to get help). While biting is something that can drive away newcomers, it's just as easy to drive people away by reverting edits without explanation. Stepping into their shoes, I imagine it must appear like all their hard work, which they delivered with the best intentions, has magically disappeared - something that could discourage them into leaving as well. For easily scared-off editors, it's kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, but in general, the community consensus seems to be that informing them is better than not. I certainly invite you to give it a personal touch, though, as that definitely can't hurt. Thanks for your response, and I'm happy to continue discussing this if you'd like to. ~ Rob^Talk 11:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@BU Rob13 Oh boy, I was just thinking about welcoming him/her to Wikipedia ({{subst:Welcome}}), but it seems you've already done that! :-) You are right though, an Edit Summary should always be provided with each edit (WP:FIES). That's something I've also been "preaching" about every now and then, but it seems I didn't leave any with that particular edit. It must have been that it was already 2 am here, lol.

Anyway, I'll go ahead and leave a message on his/her Talk Page, explaining that Facebook doesn't constitute a WP:RELIABLE source). Thanks for your message! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Odin and WP:SEAOFBLUE

Hello! I understand the desire to keep blue linking to a minimum per WP:SEAOFBLUE. Unfortunately, the general audience that this article is aimed at is not going to know much about things like theonyms and Proto-Germanic. As a result, I really think it's necessary and that we should be invoking WP:SEAOFBLUE's "Articles on technical subjects might demand a higher density of links than general-interest articles, because they are likely to contain more technical terms that general dictionaries are unlikely to explain in context." :) :bloodofox: (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi :bloodofox:! I think this edit of yours[6] already fixed the problem! =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Your lying, disruptive editting, baiting, and WP:OWN violations at Therion (Thelema) and Talk:Therion (Thelema)

You are in violation of multiple Wikipedia rules at Therion (Thelema) and Talk:Therion (Thelema). I have explained said violations here [7] [8]. Please cease and desist such disruptive behavior.

I have also noticed, from the above messages on your talk page, that you have engaged in this same type of disruptive editting at various other articles as well, such as 'Odin', 'Tathata', 'Vajravarahi', 'Mandaeanism', 'Cao Dai', and 'Talk:Acupuncture'. Please cease and desist such disruptive behavior on those other articles as well. Buffalion (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this must be the first time I've ever heard that someone finds the {{subst:Welcome}} template offensive! Anyway, by taking a look at your contributions[9], it is apparent that you are a new editor with less than fifty edits. What I am more worried about is that out of your 48 edits, 37 seems to be on Therion (Thelema), the others being mainly your user Talk Page. If I were you, I would take my warning[10] about the possibility of WP:SPA very seriously. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Tag

You added a tag to the lede. But the source is an extremely high-quality overview of Cochrane reviews. I don't understand why you added the tag. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The tag went as follows: {{Update inline|reason=This statement was made 6 years and a few different Cochrane reviews ago, is there a new source available?||date=July 2015}}. The reason for the tag was mentioned both in my Edit Summary[11] and the article Talk Page[12].

By the way, didn't you broke your 0RR restriction partially reverting that material?[13] I've brought that one up also at the article Talk Page,[14] which is the venue where the discussion about article content should take place anyway. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Your argument on the talk page about MEDDATE does not apply since it is the best review of Cochrane reviews available. A review of Cochrane reviews is a rare source and it would be very difficult to find a better source. An overview of Cochrane reviews is a much better source than the tag you previously added to a Cochrane review.

See WP:MEDDATE: "Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high-quality and are routinely maintained even if their initial publication dates fall outside the above window." QuackGuru (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverts, partial or whole, are still no way to go if you are under 0RR. I'd like to suggest that we'll continue the discussion at the article Talk Page, shall we? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	You are so nice! Thanks for all the thanks! Let's be WikiFriends! YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh no…thank YOU :D YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

12 hours

I can not look into this for at least 12 hours. If you want a faster response then you will have to go to another administrator or to ANI. Let me know if you do. -- PBS (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, PBS! It's okay, there's no immediate hurry! :-P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Arbcom MOS discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Also read the last paragraph of WP:CONLEVEL and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded (paragraph that starts "1.2) All parties are reminded..."

-- PBS (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi PBS. Thanks for having the time to look. I was wondering, how should we proceed at the guideline page? The current version is built on the last revert[15] by user EEng to keep his own version, and he still doesn't have consensus for his edits. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to micro manage how you two interact. I have laid out what the guidance is, it is up to the two of you to work out how you will cooperate. If either of you think that the other is being unreasonable, the given the Arbcom discretionary sanctions, notify me on my talk page and I will try to mediate and if that fails I will take administrative action if I deem it necessary, but be aware of a boomerang. -- PBS (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think the WP policy and the arbitration case you mentioned above give a solid foundation to built on, and serve as a strong enough reason to return the disputed edits back to the article Talk Page. Thanks one more time. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate level of wikilinking

Good message at WT:MOSLINK. I do a lot of maintenance work that includes unlinking common terms and chronological items. But en.WP is ahead of the game in this respect compared with most of the other WPs. May I ask whether you have experience at another WP? And if so, whether you've had any success in convincing other editors to use the wikilinking system more skillfully? I've watchlisted this page if you want to reply here. Tony (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for watchlisting this page. MaynardClark (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings there Tony1! And thanks for your message, I'm glad to hear that there is someone else concerned with the same problems too.

I agree with you, the English Wikipedia is way ahead it's other language version counterparts. I am currently contributing to the Finnish language Wikipedia aside from the English one, and I must say that I am really giving up hope with it completely... Few practices still vivid and alive at the Finnish Wikipedia:

1) They are linking all the dates (official WP-policy there, e.g. October 5th, 2004)

2) ...linking a lot of common terms

3) ...linking compounded words from the middle even (e.g. toothpick)

=> If your try to remove excess linking - even with well-grounded reasons and participating the discussion at the Talk page - it is likely to just get reverted without any explanations. There is also a very little contributor base in the fi.wiki, and therefore it is pretty much the same group of contributors that keep patrolling on the changes in the articles and backing-up the doings of one an each other.

If there shall be any discussion though, it tends to be taken to your User -talk page, often on a very personal level, and taken away from below the eyes of the other article contributors...

I have also launched a discussion at the fi.WP, one where "I got mistaken to refer" to the English Wikipedia policies. This resulted into fierce responses, according to which Finnish Wikipedia is completely different, and that the English policies have no value at the Finnish side. Well, that's actually true and I do understand it but.... how about benchmarking? Is it bad in general? In Finnihs Wikipedia, it seems it is.

The Finnish Wikipedia has sunken deep with it's current conceptions, and the general mindset with wikilinks still seems to be "the more, the better".

That's pretty much my experiences in my rather small language version. Maybe I should just drift towards Citizendium (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium) slowly xD ... How about your experiences Tony1? Which language edition you've been working with? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You might tell them that overlinking has the same ill effect for all readers—whether of en.WP or fi.WP. The particular language is irrelevant. The war about linking started with the ridiculous date-autoformatting that was introduced into en.WP in 2003 as a ham-fisted solution to editors' fights about US vs non-US formatting. Only logged-in editors who had chosen prefs saw any "benefit". Not readers.

The main battle was won about six years ago: what was surprising was the vehemence of objection, and the fact that within a year or two hardly any editor objected. The whole attitude has turned 180 degrees. It's a symptom of how crude the wikicultures are in other languages that readers don't count. The linking system is washed out and the text looks pretty bad, because no one has stood up to the mind-set of the geek-nuts who are in control. Very happy to have you editing here.

User:Tony1/Most_poorly_wikilinked_article_award, User:Tony1/Survey_of_attitudes_to_DA_removal, User:Tony1/Information_on_the_removal_of_DA, User:Tony1/Build_your_linking_skills. Tony (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Linking all dates is not policy on fi.wiki, has never been policy, and the current policy explicitly advising against linking dates and years unless central to the topic of the article has been in place since 2007. General over- and mislinking is and has been something of a problem, but not nearly as much as you imply. AFAIK it's mostly due to the lack of WikiGnomes; experienced, active users seem mostly concerned about creating new articles and adding content, so badly written or formatted, and indeed, mislinked, articles can remain untouched for years especially if they're not of a popular subject. It seems unfair to blame the userbase when the roots lie in having a small community.--Pitke (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

MOSLINK

I know things have been testy and not entirely reasonable over there (or in the related thread at my talk page, an issue I raised with PBS), but anything you can do to help what we did get consensus on, so far, to proceed smoothly would be appreciated. I'm not sure what EEng's big deal is with wanting to introduce the changes so slowly, himself, but I suggest we all just WP:DGAF. It's not worth the trouble to squabble about it. Getting the consensus-okayed changes in, in a way that doesn't flip people out, is a worthwhile goal, even if it's not ideal to proceed quite this slowly. I do agree with the idea the we should not just dump a bunch of changes in at once, much less mix them with new changes. It'd be helpful to clear up this matter first, then proceed to stuff you want to do (moving something around, compressing some over-long segments, etc.) The less the two of you are trying to make changes at the same time that are at cross-purposes, the less the other editors who watchlist the page are likely to say "WTF?" and just revert it all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, SMcCandlish ☺! Thanks for your message. I have to agree, the Talk Page dynamics haven't quite been what I was hoping for. Actually, I am not sure if you noticed, but I contacted administrator PBS about the problems a couple of weeks ago already.[16] I think the core of the problem is two-fold: 1) user EEng mingles small copy-edits with substantive (and substantial) edits, and 2) he is not that willing to discuss the changes he has made. For example, unless it wasn't for user Boson[17] and I[18], I doubt if there had been any Talk Page discussion at all.

Then, of course, there are other issues related. For example, his edits have been reverted by four different editors, yet he has restored those five times already. If administrator NeilN got it any right ("No excuse for not logging in)[19], the reverts by a mystery IP[20][21] would make that seven.

I don't think anybody objects to all of EEng's edits, but what's problematic is that he doesn't acknowledge any of his edits as substantive, even several editors have voiced that out already. And with respect to his substantive edits, he is turning the WP:CONSENSUS upside down: (1) he does not explain his edits, but he demands other editors to explain why his edits were not okay; (2) some editors reply to him; (3) he shoots down the comments and demands for re-explanations).

I couldn't agree more: now we have consensus for the first twelve edits at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Discussion of individual edits (2), so I can't quite understand the slow pace he's demanding. Also the incident of EEng reverting his own edits (while mistaking those to be mine)[22] is the most confusing (amusing). I have now restored some of the edits in a slow pace[23][24]. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've asked him not to vent about you, so let's not vent about him either. :-) I agree we have consensus about (not necessarily for) the 12 enumerated editorial proposals. He said he needed 48 hours or something like that, and that time is up, so hopefully we'll see some progress now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure :-) Good point btw, I meant those editorial proposals out of the twelve that have gained consensus, not all of them! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Michele Moramarco page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

MiszaBot

The string said "archive = Talk:Example/Archive %(counter)d", which had to be "archive = User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive %(counter)d".Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Joshua Jonathan! My editing time has been really limited lately as I've moved to another country, but I'll try to participate every now and then :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

bible citation

How about we delete this ?

For example, The Book of Genesis, chapter 3, verse 5, of The Living Bible (TLB) would be cited as:

Genesis 3:5, TLB

"God knows very well that the instant you eat it you shall become as he is..."

Editor2020, Talk 01:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, Editor2020! Sorry for the late response; I thought I already replied to you, but actually I didn't! Anyway, have you seen the thread Talk:Bible citation#Contradiction inline? =P I know, the article is a bit challenging since many of the statements might seem contradicting, while they remain largely unsourced as well. For example, in sections Bible citation#Punctuation and Bible citation#Editions abbreviations are told to be used, whereas Bible citation#Common formats explicitly tells abbreviations not to be used. Well, Bible citation#Editions refers to the Student Supplement to the SBL Handbook of Style, whereas Bible citation#Common formats makes a reference to the APA style of citation (the claim that "...Translation/version names should not be abbreviated..." remains unreferenced though).

I agree with you though. I think at this point we should drop that one from the lede unti the body of text is clarified a little. I think one way to do this would be to gather all the different citation styles (pro- & con-abbreviations) into one single section, e.g. Bible citation#Abbreviating book names that already exists. Now the information about abbreviations is fragmented into four different sections, where the statements might appear conflicting and hence confuse the reader. What do you think? =P

Anyway, I'll let you go on with trimming the lede! Cheers mate! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I'll try to have a look. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Nokia X

Could you clarify your motivation behind this edit? Eman235/talk 19:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings User:Eman235! I restored some of the material you deleted (under an ES of "copy-edit"), and also recovered an earlier wording (the new wording removed the sentence from it's context). Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I sometimes get a little over-zealous... Eman235/talk 02:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's okay, User:Eman235! Good work have you done with the article! ;-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List of online encyclopedias

Thank you for the suggested re-wording of the subheading. I hope it's okay with you that I went ahead with the re-edit based on your thoughts. (I know of a few more state encyclopedias to add, if they have Wikipedia entries!)  :) Floridasand (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Floridasand! Looks fine to me now! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr.Shishya I have to advise you

Escuse me but I just want you to be aware that some of your edits might be hurtful to others. On Chicago's Wikipedia page, Chicago, Illinois, you deleted an entire paragraph made by me. Its okay if i don't have any sources (I don't need sources its the truth obviously). I just want you to be aware of how others feel about you removing content that they typed on their own time. Sincerely, SupremeRulerGFG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.32.68 (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, 75.32.32.68! Actually, one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability. You may want to familiarize yourself with the policies. Even though the material you added would be completely true, we'd need to back it up by WP:RELIABLE, WP:THIRDPARTY sources. I am sorry if you feel that all your editorial work is being discarded, but that's the way Wikipedia works. I am sure you can reinsert the material, though, as soon as you have found some sources to back up your statements. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit has been reverted, beside me, by two other editors as well[25][26][27]. Therefore, I'd suggest reading WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:EDITWAR as well. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda

I've reverted your edit [28] given there's an open RfC on this qualification of the statement. Please consider joining the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Ronz. I mistakenly thought that the RfC is about the pseudoscience label in general, a discussion we already had earlier and therefore didn't pay that much attention. I am in support of your revert, though. I'll try to look into the discussion closer if I have the time. :-) Cheers and happy year of 2016! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for your feedback, on an AE regarding ECIG Articles.

Hello, you are a recent editor of Electronic Cigarettes, I am asking for your input to an Arbitration Enforcement Request AE. Found here. If you have time I would appreciate your input. The items in question are listed out 1-8. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mystery_Wolff
Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jayaguru-Shishya!

Happy New Year!

Jayaguru-Shishya,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. LesVegas (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks for your vest wishes, LesVegas! I hope you have a really productive one as well! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Odin

Hello, Jayaguru-Shishya, I commend you for your edits to Odin, but in my opinion, these were better left as they were. "Whence stems..." is better than leaving the verb at the end of a long clause. It's like saying "From which comes..." Also, the addition of "he" is all right, but not necessary since the subject is the same; the additional word just slows down the flow of the sentence. (I would even leave out the comma before "and", but some editors prefer it). But, it's not so important, so I'll let you decide. Corinne (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Corinne! Actually, what I was more concerned about was the redundant use of parentheses. To be honest, the word whence is something I have rarely ran into, and now looking into the matter more deeply, it seems that it's old English, Middle English to be exact. Another variation suggested would be from whence, although this structure has also been criticized[29]:

The construction from whence has been criticized as redundant since the 1700s. It is true that whence incorporates the sense of from: a remote village, whence little news reached the wider world. But from whence has been used steadily by reputable writers since the 1300s, among them Shakespeare, John Milton, Jane Austen, and the translators of the King James Bible: "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help" (Psalms). Such a respectable precedent makes it difficult to label the construction, which is fairly rare and very formal in any case, as incorrect.

Now thinking of it more closely, I'd actually prefer something more down-to-this-day, like "from which most surviving information about the gods stems from".

Well, I know that leaving the verb and/or preposition at the end of the clause is highly contested, but for my ear it sounds better and appropriate for an inserted clause like this ;-) Anyway, as I said the use of parentheses mainly caught my attention and therefore I'd like to throw the ball back to you. I hope you agree with the parenthesis though ;-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious reply. Let me make each point separately:

• I definitely would not use "from whence". "Whence" means "from where", "from which place". To me, "whence stems X" or "whence X stems" is perfectly good English. It's actually more concise (using fewer words) than "from which stems (or comes) X" or "from which X stems (or comes)". However, I get your point, that for some readers it is a little old-fashioned or archaic. Instead of "stems" or even "comes", we could use "is obtained" (i.e., "is obtained by scholars"), but the single word ("stems" or "comes") is more concise, and it is correct to place the verb early in the clause:

• from which stems most surviving information about the gods
• from which comes most surviving information about the gods
• from which most surviving information about the gods is obtained

I still prefer the first one. What do you think?

• Regarding the use of parentheses, I also agree that they slow down the flow of a sentence. When they are used correctly, and sparingly, they are useful. But I also agree that it's important not to slow down the flow of sentences in the lead. This information about the source of information about Odin is rather important, so there is no reason to minimize it by putting it into parentheses. I also agree with your removal of the other parentheses a little later in the article. Good calls!

• Just a little correction, if you don't mind my pointing it out. You wrote, above, "To be honest, the word whence is something I have rarely ran into". "Ran" is incorrect here. "Have run" is present perfect tense, and after "have" (or "has", or past perfect "had"), you need to use the past participle. This verb is one of the few verbs in English for which the past participle is the same as the present tense/simple form. "Ran" is past tense. The forms are "run - ran - run". So it should read: "whence is something I have rarely run into".

• Also, above, you wrote: Now thinking of it more closely, I'd actually prefer something more down-to-this-day, like "from which most surviving information about the gods stems from". You definitely would not want to use "from" twice: once at the beginning of the clause and once at the end. When speaking, or writing informally, many people leave the preposition at the end, but for formal or academic writing, the preposition is usually at the beginning, especially with "to which", "from which", "for which", etc. Corinne (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne. Sorry, it's 3 am here right now, maybe I shouldn't be writing responses at this ungodly hour in the first place :-) I was juggling between two alternatives, and I was meant to suggest something like: "where most surviving information about the gods stems from". Anyway, I do understand the usage of archaic English as well, so I'll let you make the call with this one. Mostly the redundant use of parentheses was the thing that caught my attention ;-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I assumed you didn't understand. I have worked until late in the evening, too, so I know what happens when you get tired. Corinne (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at the lead again, and I decided to put the sentence into more modern and understandable form. I also decided to leave out "surviving" from "surviving information". I figured that if information hasn't survived, there's no way we can obtain it, so the word is unnecessary. Corinne (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 3 am is a Godly hour: everyone asleep, the world is silent, could it be better? Sleep tight! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne, the lede looks better to me now! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, that it was indeed, just like you described. But when the realm of dreams begins to enter what we call the "waking reality" (if one even exists), that's when things start to get real messy on the editorial side ;-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Resizing Bodhidharma

The picture is insensitive to px-commands... Even 1000px wouldn't help. Unfortunately, I don't know why. Bets regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

ty

please read my user page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiangzi9 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Xiangzi9:Makes sense to me.

Snake Apple Eva what century? some history to send people work for some1? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ abraham, christ, islam. Cat finger ring, Jade Emperor Cat Rat Zodiac Legend.

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yamantaka

About your comment Yamantaka Revision history: 17:55, 22 February 2016.

Thank you for your phenomenological integrity. But is it not your belief that you saw superficially? I am satisfied in most articles. The articles where I am particular about are '$$$$$$$ of $$$' and the equals. It is boundless except $$$. It was my slight contribution to match phases with other language. Well, Yamantaka will be fun, too. I have my life. Good-bye, God of Yamantaka bless you! --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

East Asian Buddhism

Hi Jayaguru-Shishya, I'm writing in regards to the dispute over a link on the article for East Asian Buddhism. I think we may have come to a mutual misunderstanding here, so I want to clear some things up.

My intention was to add the link to Shingon Buddhism because a the statement, "Vajrayana Buddhism also exists in East Asian forms, such as Japan's Shingon sect" does not include a link to the article, even though it directly references Shingon. Shingon Buddhism is a form of Japanese Buddhism which is a part of Vajrayana, and includes many esoteric practices.

I'm a bit confused as to why exactly you removed the link to Shingon. I added it because the sect was directly referenced on the page, so I thought it was necessary to include a link to it. As per your statement, "'Japan's Shingon'? So are there other 'Shingon' sects as well? If so, why not just link to the specific one?" This seems to be where we've reached a misunderstanding. I'm unsure as to whether Shingon is prevalent in other countries, however it is clear to me that it developed in Japan from other Vajrayana teachings. Regardless, whether or not there is Shingon practitioners in other countries, there is no "Chinese Shingon" or "Korean Shingon" articles, nor is there an article for Japanese Shingon.

I'll be awaiting your response, and thanks. TomUSA 21:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, TomUSA! Thanks for your message. After having a closer look, I think the whole paragraph is a bit problematic: in just three sentences, there are seven wikilinks, but zero sources to verify the material. Wikipedia is not a WP:LINKFARM, i.e. adding as many links as possible to the article is not an intrinsic value.

I will try to find some sources to verify the material, starting now. I think one good source would be enough to rewrite the part regarding the major schools of East Asian Buddhism. What do you think? :-P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I am done with my investigation now, and the best I could find is White, David Gordon. 2001. Tantra in Practice. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. A bit surprisingly, the source goes as follows (p. 21):[30]

As for the history of Tantra, it may be approached both by emic and etic perspectives. By way of presenting the problems of Tantric historiography, I begin by presenting an emic dillemma in Japan. Here, of course, we are in the presence of "export" Tantra, in this case Mahāyāna traditions brought to greater Asia from India by monks and other religious specialists from the fifth century C.E. onward. [...] This is manifestly the case, for example with Japanese Shingon - founded by Kūkai (774 - 835 C.E.) - whose core revelations are the seventh-century C.E. Mahāvairocana Sūtra and the Tattvasamgraha-sutra.

So, this source is to say that Shingon Buddhism wouldn't have originated from the Vajrayana Buddhism at all, but from Mahāyāna Buddhism instead. Well, it's always good to be careful with unreferenced material. Anyway, this source would suggest that the current text we have at the article wouldn't quite hold true. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, everything looks in order then! Thanks for taking care of that, and explaining that to me. Also, thanks for the insight on Shingon Buddhism, I didn't know about that myself. I agree that the particular section of the article needed to be rewritten anyway, there was too much unsourced information. Thanks again, TomUSA 22:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

about xiangzi9

please no block me its my another account email only same user — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iching4096 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)