User talk:Jikaku

Leave me a message.

Since you asked so nicely... ;)

If you want to there is a banner with links and options here: {{message}} and there are methods for archiving you talk page here--Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bujinkan

I was about to reply with exactly the same thing... --Nate1481 08:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism...

And anyone who reads the edit would not think so. I will continue to post the edit to warn individuals who are interested in tendai buddhism to research teachers and corporate entities before committing to a teacher. An individual with the username of "jikaku", however, is associated with an individual who was found to misrepresent himself as being an "ajari" and was, himself advertising that he was a fully ordained "soryo" (and is a webmaster/designer of the websites in question.)

If that is the case, and you are that individual, then I would understand why a "warning" would concern you.

It is obvious that a general warning for individuals to perform due diligence offends your personal agenda and views. 71.255.232.203 (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, generally when making comments regarding you and your own edits - it's easier to leave them on your own talk page (you could have done that when you were deleting all those warnings you've received). In any case, an encyclopedia entry isn't the place to "warn" people about groups or individuals you don't like. If you want to put up your own website for that purpose, more power to you - but unless your information is relevant and verifiable accoridng to wiki sources, there's no place for it here. And please don't think this is something personal on my part (as it appears you do) - your unsourced "warning" is precisely the kind of material that's prohibited by wiki's NPOV policy, and that's why it's removed (by me and others). I'll add this over on your own talk page as well, which is where further discussion on this matter should take place. --Jikaku (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert?

Why did you revert my edit here? [1] ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

To remove this unsourced/uncited controversial statement:

"When he got there, he found that Buddhism, which had already been established, was perverted by superstitious devotionalism, devoid of true insight. Thus, Bodhidharma focused on direct insight about one's own experience, under the instruction of a Zen teacher, discouraging misguided veneration of Buddhas for the sake of superstition."

Jikaku (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add that, though. I restored it after a user removed a fair amount of content from that section without explanation. [2] I agree that anything there which is not sourced should be sourced, though, so would it be okay if I restored it and added a tag? When you made that revert, you also removed a paragraph that was previously there and was sourced. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Barry Graham from Zen

(Copied from here since you seem to be the same user)

Have no idea who that is or why you thought it was me - I was signed in with my username when I made those changes. You might want to go remove that from the IP address talk page though - no sense in having it there. And apologies for splitting up your message to address this on its own, first Jikaku (talk)

I'm not sure what you mean by "verified Zen teachers". The list there isn't a list of ordained Zen monks, western Zen has a number of lay teachers (in that list, there is Alan Watts, for instance), and the sources in Barry Graham's bio seem to establish him as a Zen author.

I understand removing inappropriate figures from that list. From time to time, people like Osho pop up there and I remove them, but what's the issue here with Barry Graham? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Barry Graham - while wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of determining who is and isn't a "legitimate" representative of any religion - Barry has been the subject of a wide controversy and follow-up investigation by the American Zen Teachers Association, as well as the Soto-shu administration in Japan - the findings were that regardless of his current relationship with any teacher, his "past story" about training in Scotland, and receiving transmission in Japan are completely false. Now, if this were an article about Barry, or even about Western Zen authors - then I could see where it would be appropriate to list him, along with mentioning the "controversy" with citations for "his story" as well as the official findings and statements calling him a fraud. But this isn't that - it's an article about Zen in general, and this seems too thorny an issue to bring up there. Does that make sense? Jikaku (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dae Gak

FYI, we have good consensus on the disciplinary action taken against Dae Gak. Feel free to upload the content. Thanks --UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Genbukan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genbukan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genbukan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jmcw (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For finding obscure references Jikaku (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

edits ot ui article

I did extensive research over a period of a year. I wrote some content. The web master for the Union Instiute is deleting my content because he or she finds that it does not promote the school. This person has a bias. They also deleted my references and now object to lack of sourcing. I will add those in, but the biased editors who are promoting the institutions and writing an advertisement will likely content to remove them.