User talk:Csamnak

Welcome!

Hello, Csamnak, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! — GypsyJiver  ( drop me a line ) 14:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Thanks for your edits to Buddhism in the Philippines. Keep up that pace! It will be a great article in no time if you stick to the sources and the Manual of Style. But hey, the links at the top say it much better than I can. Check them out! All the best. — GypsyJiver  ( drop me a line ) 14:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing - please try and provide an edit summary for your edits. It makes it much easier for people of simple minds like me to keep track of things. Even just something really simple like "sp" for a spelling mistake is better than nothing. Thanks! — GypsyJiver  ( drop me a line ) 14:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism in the Philippines
Hi Csamnak, good job on the article! It's looking a lot better now. I took down the essay-like tags and the references tag at the bottom. You've made some really interesting points here, and it's fascinating to see what went on in the very early days of Buddhism in the country.

I don't think the article is quite ready to have the original research tag taken down, though. You've done a good job with the references you've added so far, but Verifiability requires that every statement that could be challenged have a reliable third-party source. Let me show you what that means - I'll provide a commentary on the first paragraph of the "Pre-colonial history section":

"The raja-states's contacts with the other kingdoms have served as the vehicle for introducing Buddhism to the Philippines. Since the 6th century, the raja-states have traded with the Sumatran and the Javanese empires. Gold has been the object for barter with the other kingdoms because the Philippines has plenty of gold -- the second largest gold deposit in the world. Therefore, the Philippines must have been the Island of Gold, 'Suvarnadvipa,' or the Land of Gold, 'Suvarnabhumi,' which have been mentioned[2] in the annals of the older civilizations in the west."

Let's go over it sentence by sentence. First one: "The raja-states's contacts with the other kingdoms have served as the vehicle for introducing Buddhism to the Philippines." So far, this is pretty good. We don't have any actual proof that contacts with other kingdoms helped to introduce Buddhism to the Philippines, but if you explain this in the next few paragraphs I don't think there's any problem here.

"Since the 6th century, the raja-states have traded with the Sumatran and the Javanese empires." This statement needs a source. This doesn't look too controversial, but as far as the reader knows, this trading might have started in the 5th century or the 7th century. If you can provide a specific page reference to a history book on this, it will be much more solid.

"Gold has been the object for barter with the other kingdoms because the Philippines has plenty of gold -- the second largest gold deposit in the world." In this sentence you've actually made four statements:
 * 1) Gold was the object for barter with the other kingdoms.
 * 2) The Philippines had plenty of gold.
 * 3) The Philippines had the second-largest gold deposit in the world.
 * 4) The statement that these three things are linked: that gold was the object of barter because the Philippines had plenty of gold, and that the Philippines had plenty of gold because it had the second-largest gold deposit in the world.

You need to provide sources for all four of these. So, you need to hunt through a history book to find a writer that says that gold was the object for barter, and that the Philippines had the second-largest gold reserves in the world. Most importantly, you need to find an author that says that these two facts are linked - if there is no author that has written it, that means that it's original research. If you can't find a source that has said this, then you can change it to something like this: "Gold was the Philippines' object of barter with other neighboring countries. (cite source here) It had the second-largest gold deposit in the world. (cite source here) "

"Therefore, the Philippines must have been the Island of Gold, 'Suvarnadvipa,' or the Land of Gold, 'Suvarnabhumi,' which have been mentioned[2] in the annals of the older civilizations in the west."

By saying "therefore" here, you are linking this sentence with the previous one. This means that you need to find a source that says that "the Philippines must have been the Island of Gold because they used gold to barter with neighboring countries". If there isn't such a source, then you should remove "therefore". Even if you can find an author that says this, it wouldn't be clear that this author is correct, so you should write something like "Such-and-such claims that the Philippines must have been the Island of Gold because they used gold to barter with neighboring countries. (cite source here) "

You should also show which "annals of the older civilizations in the west" you are referring to, and provide a reference. Finally, it would be good to provide some wikilinks for Suvarnadvipa and Suvarnabhumi, if they exist.

Phew! That's a lot of stuff. Good luck with it - I'm sure you can find some good sources. Any questions, just ask me. All the best! — GypsyJiver  ( drop me a line ) 00:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured articles
Hi there, I just had a good idea to help you see the standard of writing that Wikipedia is aiming for. Have a look at some of Wikipedia's featured articles. These are the best of Wikipedia's work, and should give you a very good idea of what your articles should look like when they are finished. Pay special attention to the quality of the citations. This is the level of proof that you need to provide in your articles. As usual, any questions, just ask me. — GypsyJiver  ( drop me a line ) 09:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

New article - Buddhism in the Philippines (pre-colonial period)
I created a new article to put all your content in. Check it out! Buddhism in the Philippines (pre-colonial period) — GypsyJiver  ( drop me a line ) 14:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi there Csamnak. Thanks again for your edits on Buddhism in the Philippines. I have a request for you - please, please, please, please use edit summaries! It makes it a lot easier for people to see what you have been doing. Edit summaries go in the edit summary box - have a look at Help:Edit summary to see how. All the best. — GypsyJiver  ( drop me a line ) 23:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. — GypsyJiver  ( drop me a line ) 13:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary&#32;for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. — GypsyJiver  ( drop me a line ) 13:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Do you know where I might find a copy of this journal? — Mr. Stradivarius  ( drop me a line ) 03:35, 13 January 2011 (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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)