User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/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.
 * 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 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=666668829 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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)
 * 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


 * 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)

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:
 * 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), 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 )
 * Mahayana sutras: The text in the article said " A 5th-century Chinese 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".
 * Khotanese: The text in the article says " A later translation or reedited version was attributed to the 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 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:
 * You changed " Wat Phra Dhammakaya is a Buddhist temple (wat) ..." to " Wat Phra Dhammakaya is a wat (Buddhist temple-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).
 * The previous edit continues, changing "... in 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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".)
 * 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.
 * 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! ;-) Anyway, I'm glad I managed to explain some of my edits better. Please find below my "short" replies:
 * 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 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.
 * 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 Irish Chess Championship ). Actually, there was a discussion about similar issue some months ago 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.
 * 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 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.
 * Mahayana sutras : I was about to make a reference to "chain linking" (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.
 * 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)
 * 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 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&#32;to Korean Buddhism: you may already know about them, but you might find 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. ~ RobTalk 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. ~ RobTalk 11:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Oh boy, I was just thinking about welcoming him/her to Wikipedia, 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." :) &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi &#58;bloodofox:! I think this edit of yours 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 . 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 template offensive! Anyway, by taking a look at your contributions, 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 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: . The reason for the tag was mentioned both in my Edit Summary and the article Talk Page.
 * By the way, didn't you broke your 0RR restriction partially reverting that material? I've brought that one up also at the article Talk Page, 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!
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
Also read the last paragraph of WP:CONLEVEL and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation (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 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 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, 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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. 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 and I, 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), the reverts by a mystery IP 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, 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) is the most confusing (amusing). I have now restored some of the edits in a slow pace. 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  (not necessarily ) 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Michele Moramarco page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=673676883 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F673676883%7CMichele Moramarco%5D%5D Ask for help])

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/Archives/2021/September? =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 and Bible citation abbreviations are told to be used, whereas Bible citation explicitly tells abbreviations not to be used. Well, Bible citation refers to the Student Supplement to the SBL Handbook of Style, whereas Bible citation 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 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? Eman 235 / 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... Eman 235 / 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 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. 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 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, 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:
 * "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)

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)

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

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.  Tom  US  A   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):
 * "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,  Tom  US  A   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)

Korean Social Democratic Party
Hello. I was disturbed to see you removed some of my recent additions in this edit. Please do not remove information unless it is clearly controversial, or has been fact-tagged for some time. Not everything on Wikipedia has to be referenced, and this information was easily verifiable had you bothered to look. Next time, please just add a citation needed tag, or ask the editor who added it, rather than deleting. Thanks, Number   5  7  10:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Whilst this edit is also extremely unhelpful (if you had bothered to look closely at the source, you would have easily found the other years' election results), this is completely unacceptable. Firstly, not everything on Wikipedia needs to be referenced; secondly (and more importantly), deleting referenced material (which part of that paragraph was) is disruptive behaviour, which if repeated, will result in me requesting other administrators review your behaviour. Why on earth did you do that? Number   5  7  10:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings Number 57! When it comes references, you may want to familiarize yourself with Verifiability, which is one of indispensable cornerstones of Wikipedia. Especially the section WP:BURDEN states:
 * "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. [...] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
 * I checked the source that failed to verify thoroughly, and I explained in the reason -parameter that the source didn't even mention the years included in your addition concerning the parliamentary elections. It also seems that in your most recent edit, you provided re-introduced the material, now accompanied by a reference to the Korean Wikipedia. However, another Wikipedia article doesn't qualify as a source (WP:CIRCULAR).
 * I hope this helps! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware of WP:V, and as stated, the material was easily verifiable, as proved by the fact that it took me about a minute to reference it. Despite your claim, you clearly did not look at the IPU source thoroughly, otherwise you would have seen the very clearly marked "Election archive" section where all the previous election results are stored. As for the 1948 election results, the Korean Wikipedia version is sourced, but the link is broken. I have asked an editor on the Korean Wikipedia if they can find a live link to satisfy you. Number   5  7  11:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked the source you mentioned above, but still couldn't find any mention of the parliamentary elections of 1990, 1998, etc. If the link is broken (WP:DEADLINK), you can try different services, such as Wayback Machine, to restore the link. If it's lost for good, though, I am afraid you'll have to find another source. You may also want to familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL; accusing other editors of vandalism when you have failed to provide sources for the material you added is not advisable. Any other discussion about the article I wish you will take to the article Talk Page where it belongs. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The link is not broken. I included it in my last response, but here it is again. There are two obvious links near the top of the page taking you to the Election archive in which all the elections are listed, again very clearly. I am struggling to understand how you are failing to see this. Number   5  7  11:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You said: "As for the 1948 election results, the Korean Wikipedia version is sourced, but the link is broken." I am confused. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the IPU source; you said "I checked the source you mentioned above, but still couldn't find any mention of the parliamentary elections of 1990, 1998". Can you not see the Electoral archive section?
 * With regards to the 1948 results source, the first thing I did was check the Wayback archive, but it's not there (I suspect it is a database results page that would not be recorded, and the link may only be valid for one search), hence why I asked the Korean editor for a new link. Number   5  7  11:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If the source is no longer available, we should remove the one that no longer exists. Remember that in Wikipedia all content must be verifiable. With the IPU source, still, it doesn't mention the dates. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * By all means go on the Korean Wikipedia and edit that article if you want. As for the IPU source, I cannot understand how you are failing to find the results. I think I've already explained this simply enough already, but here's another go:
 * Go to the IPU source
 * Click on either of the "Election archive" or "Archive of past election results for this chamber" links near the top of the page
 * Read the page you have arrived at (the results are listed backwards from 2009, 2003, 1998, 1990 etc).
 * If you still can't access it after this, I have to conclude that you are winding me up? Number   5  7  12:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's keep  thinks  simple,  shall  we?  The  URL  of  the source  you gave  is  following:  http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/2085_E.htm .  Does  that  source  mention  the  years  of  the  parliamentary  elections?  Yes  or  no?  Cheers!  Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, and as I stated earlier "if you had bothered to look closely at the source, you would have easily found the other years' election results". Please don't play dumb here; it was quite obvious where you could have looked for the results had you really wanted. Number   5  7  12:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So the source doesn't verify the material you added to the article. Until you have found a decent source, the material should be removed. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it does verify it – and you are aware of this because I have shown you exactly where you can access the data on the previous elections. And because your attitude is so unhelpful, I already added each individual election's reference to the article. I am having great trouble understanding why exactly you are being so awkward about this. Number   5  7  14:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Number 57. You don't have to explain me where to access the data; indeed, you may want to familiarize yourself with our Verifiability policy, which states that all content must be verifiable. Moreover, according to the policy one must provide "a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Whether the source verifies the material, or then it does not. There is no need for any "click that - click this", just provide with the source directly as stated by our policy.
 * I hope this helped. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it didn't help, as I already knew that. I would simply advise that you be less obstinate when dealing with other editors – this is a collaborative project and your unhelpf attitude is one of the worst I have come across. I now presume that you knew full well that the data was there and accessible, you were just attempting to make a WP:POINT. Sadly all this has done is antagonise someone else who is trying to improve an article. Number   5  7  18:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I just re-read your first message: "Whilst this edit is also extremely unhelpful (if you had bothered to look closely at the source, you would have easily found the other years' election results), this is completely unacceptable. Firstly, not everything on Wikipedia needs to be referenced; secondly (and more importantly), deleting referenced material (which part of that paragraph was) is disruptive behaviour, which if repeated, will result in me requesting other administrators review your behaviour. Why on earth did you do that?"


 * You've clearly got the manners, don't you? ;-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

April 1, 2016 Alert
QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:QuackGuru, but I know that you know that I know already ;-) Are you still under WP:0RR at the article? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Deleting sourced content under discussion without consensus. Editors at the talk page disagreed with the removal. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * User:QuackGuru, I checked the discussion where you referred to. Indeed, seems like the other editors were in disagreement with your position. Please don't archive the discussion manually, especially if you relaunch the debate three hours earlier. I consider it as a significant advance, though, that you've engaged in discussion instead of edit warring, especially due to the WP:0RR you have. Cheers!
 * Please don't edit war to restore multiple sections.
 * You deleted the content but other editors disagreed with removing it. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:QuackGuru, you are prohibited to file cases at the Wikipedia administrative noticeboards by yourself for some severe past abuses, right? If you are accusing me of edit warring, please take it to WP:AN/I instead of here, but please make sure to first ask a permission from Kww as you are obligated to. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that I am no longer an administrator, it would seem unreasonable to continue to enforce that restriction.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, my apologies Kww! Indeed, you lost your adminship due to the misuse of administrative tools by an Arbcom decision. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, more due to misuse of Arbcom authority to protect a disruptive friend of theirs, but it makes no difference in the end.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No Kww, not quite. Anyway, I have to agree with you: whether your lose of adminship was due to your incompetence to work as an administrator, or the abuse of the tools given yo you, it doesn't make a difference anymore. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag without fixing the problems. The sources stated "experimental and investigational." They did not say for "lack of scientific evidence of safety and/or efficacy". QuackGuru ( talk ) 22:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello User:QuackGuru. If you see a problem with the article, shouldn't you be the one to explain the problem? For more information about the correct use of the tag, I'd recommend you to familiarize yourself with the Template:Failed verification. Please read it carefully before tagging again. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!
Dear Jayaguru-Shishya, thank so much for the Barnstar! Much appreciated! I am planning on doing some more editing on the Wang article in the next month, but I am terrible with getting the referring done right, so please have patience. Regardless, thank so much for your kindness, help and good work, and please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, A.S. Brown! :-) Thanks to you for all the good work with the article content! And please enjoy your weekend as well...! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I had to work so it was not much fun this weekend, but you know the old saying: money may buy you happiness, but it makes misery much easier to bear. Thank you again for all your kind words. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Dhammakaya meditation
Hi, I do not believe that the main problems in this article are related to overlinking. :) JimRenge (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi JimRenge! Heh, I know :-) I've tagged quite a many primary sources, or pieces of text containing original research. Should those pieces of text be removed, the article would shrink a lot in size.
 * Another concern is that, whereas the lede should summarize the content of the article's body, we now have a separate source that isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. Moreover, the source provided to back up this standalone reference, it doesn't even verify the material it claims to verify. In other words, we would have a lede in the article that is totally unreferenced, and where the content would not match the WP:BODY at all. :-P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Chicago Boulevard System
at Articles for deletion/Chicago Boulevard System, you were told by me that the webpage you and I both cited links to a PDF nomination document in two parts that total 248 pages (one has 142, the second has 106 pages), but you keep going on that there is no source. Have you looked at the webpage? I would have linked directly to the PDF documents but I was posting from a mobile device where I can't see URLs, much less cut and paste them. At this point I don't know what to make of your comments. I request that you make some effort, instead of acting as if something doesn't exist, when it does. I post this here because this is starting to go off-topic from the AFD. -- do ncr  am  03:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there, doncram. I agree, thanks for posting here. I checked the all of the sources given at the article (four in total), and none of those had that many pages. It might be that I am missing something here, so please feel free to point it out if necessary! The sources in the article were the following
 * WTTW. Biking the Boulevards with Geoffrey Baer: a TV program description, 3 paragraphs
 * Bluestone, D. M. 1985. National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form: Logan Square Boulevards Historic District: a national register nomination form (primary source) and the only pfd quoted in the article, 26 pages
 * City of Chicago. Nomination: Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District: city's web page, 4 paragraphs
 * City of Chicago. Logan Square Boulevards District: city's web page, 1 paragraph


 * The longest source was number two with a total of 26 pages, and it was the only pdf quoted in the article. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying this way, this seems constructive finally. It is #3 that I meant, and which both you and I linked to in the AFD.  About that webpage, perhaps its title ("Nomination: Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District") mislead you.  It is not the nomination itself;  the PDF nomination document in two parts is linked partway down that page at "Chicago Park Boulevard System Historic District - Part I / Part II - Draft National Register Nomination Form  (PDF)". -- do  ncr  am  19:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Kabbalah
Any reason? It was accurate as qualified thusly. Nagelfar (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Nagelfar, you must refer to the revert I made on the Kabbalah article. You added unreferenced content without providing any explanation. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Kata'ib Hezbollah
My edit of Kata'ib Hezbollah included a mix of grammar corrections, linkage, cited claims, and unreferenced claims. By reverting my entire edit to get rid of the uncited claims, you also removed all the other improvements. I have un-done your reverting of my edit, but am working to add citations for the uncited claims. Next time plz don't revert an entire edit because it includes a few uncited claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillin523 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Dillin523. Indeed, your edit was quite a substantial one (+954), and it mixed both minor grammar fixes with changing the substance of existing content and adding new, unreferenced content. Perhaps you could divide your edits into smaller pieces in the future? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk)
 * I just checked the KH page and saw what you did. You removed my grammar corrections, added your own terrible grammar, removed my correction of the strength estimate based on what the source says, removed their involvement in the 2014-present Iraqi Civil War despite their involvement in multiple battles, removed their involvement in the 2003-2011 Iraq War despite multiple sources confirming it, removed the link to Muhandis, etc etc. I've restored the article, and hope you don't mess with my edits for petty reasons again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillin523 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, you just started edit warring even despite of the tag. From now on, please take the discussion to the article Talk Page ... and please, do not introduce unreferenced material to the article. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk)
 * First, the in use tag wasn't there when I started editing. When I saw that it was there, I promptly stopped editing. Second, I'm not "edit warring". I'm stopping edits I think are detrimental to the page's quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillin523 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The tag was inserted here. After that, you carried out multiple edits. Now, you have kept adding your original research on the subject, making your own conclusions on the basis of a couple of battles in Iraq that the organization is participating the frontier agains the Islamic State. The sources you have even quoted yourself tell that this is not the case. Last, the source you added seems to be a WP:PRIMARY source. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. I started the edits before it was there and submitted them some time after it appeared. 2. It is not "original research" to say that they're part of a war because they've fought in it. The sources all say they have been fighting in the Iraqi war against ISIS. And its not "a couple of battles", they've fought in several battles against ISIS for major cities across Iraq. Why do you feel the need to understate their involvement in the war against ISIS? Are you against the group? 4. Is English your first language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillin523 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I was wondering the same with you. The paragraph you introduced: "In a 2015 interview with Beladi TV, Sayyed Jasem al-Jazaeri, a member of Kata'ib Hezbollah's political council, announced that the group had no secretary general or leader but that the group is being led by a council consisting of 5 leading members that make decisions for the group."


 * That doesn't sound too fluent English to me. Anyway, please find below my answers to the points you brought up, in brief and short:
 * As quoted above, you carried out three edits after I had placed the  tag.
 * So do you have sources stating that they are fighting in a large-scale in Iraq? There might be plenty of reasons if they aren't doing so. So far, the sources have pointed out some specific battles only.
 * From now on, please take the discussion to the article Talk Page. I will move the discussion there later. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk)
 * I started a new section to continue the conversation there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillin523 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Gnosticism
Secundian is a disambiguation page, not a content page, and as such, it is incorrect to link to it as this article does. If you can identify a more appropriate target, do so—but please do not leave the link pointing to a disambiguation page. — swpb T 12:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification, swpb. I've removed the link from the article now. Cheers! ˇˇˇˇ

Chicago cite for metro area pop. & rank
FYI—the URLs in the original cite and the URL you tried are transient, good only for the search session. There is a button on the table display page (or one page back) that requests a bookmark URL. The bookmark URL is a permanent link. I've replaced the cite using the permanent URL. If I remember correctly, that procedure holds throughout the U.S. Census Bureau website. — Neonorange (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Neonorange! The URL seems to be running now perfectly! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Eliphas Lévi
Hi, this is with reference to your reversal of my edit of Eliphas Lévi. I understand that the edit was a large one, but this is due to the fact that the article consisted of a few paragraphs that contained, with one exception that I left unaltered, erroneous information (such as non-existent publications, wrong dates, wrong claims without citation, etc.). So I replaced this entry with a comprehensive text that reflects current scholarship and contains detailed references to back it up. I don't see any reason why my version is not a significant improvement of the article. I would appreciate if you accepted my edit or could explain why it should not be accepted, as the standardized text you sent me is not very transparent for me. --Jjs hd (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

E Liquid
Can you please let me know why you removed my edit on E Liquid. I added some content which added more detail on the contents of e liquid and cited to an article that explained in more detail. But you cut and stated "This is an encyclopedia, and we cannot use commercial eShops as our sources." Please refer to the Wikipedia guidelines where it says: This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section. This specifically includes e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links but allowed in footnoted citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveceaton (talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Mary Magdalene
Could you please explain this edit? Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in the Edit Summary: The source does not even mention 'Pope Francis', 'solemnity', or 'Mary, mother of Jesus'. In other words, the source does not verify the content that was added just recently (WP:V). Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So, I deliberately removed any mention of 'Pope Francis', 'solemnity' and 'Mary, mother of Jesus'?? Cheers! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Martinevans123! I was paying little or no attention (most seemingly the latter one). I reverted my edit now, thanks for the notification! ;-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. You'll have your work cut out removing thousands of links to major world religions. Cheers! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

New Netherlands
Hi. I only just noticed it wasn't you who inserted this, but are you seriously ok with this addition?

"New Netherland established in 1614 (and later renamed "New York" in 1664 & reestablish in 1674 ), both had a legal constitutional right and practiced freedom of religion by excepting Catholics, Baptists, Quakers, Lutherans, Jewish and others into their settlements and continued this practice when they officially became a colony.  According to the book, The Island at the Center of the World by Historian Russel Shorto, the practice of Freedom of Religion was inherited from the Netherlands who over the decades preceding the colony had been excepting religion refugees from France, Spain and Germanic regions. The Netherlands first constitutionalized Religious Freedom in 1579 with the most recent revision in 1983. When the first Dutch people settled in New Netherland (New York) in 1614 they were legally entitled to this right through Dutch law. While many Dutch were of the Dutch Reform church, people from Spanish, French, German, Norwegian, Germanic, Angolan (Africa), Congolese (Africa), and others were also present. The non-Dutch Reform people excepted into the colony were allowed - with permission from the the Dutch Director General Kieft and later Stuyvesant - to build churches and synagogues. Additionally, Native Americans were permitted to room and board in the colony. This suggests they too were permitted to practice their religion. While Dutch law permitted Freedom of Religion, there were times when Dutch Director General Pieter Stuyvesant prevent Jews in Manhattan from advancing and being excepted into the community. Despite this, he was ordered by his "Boss" the Directors of the West Indian Company to conform to Dutch law. During the English occupation from 1664-1667 (Sovereignty was not yet granted by the Dutch until 1667), English Sovereignty from 1667-1673, and again reestablished English Sovereignty in 1674 the English had promised to respect the people of Manhattan and the surrounding area's right to practice their religion due to the Articles of Capitulation which was later added into the New York City Charter, "The Dutch here shall enjoy the liberty of their Consciences,...". The guarantee for the Freedom of Religion when English took control of New Netherland and renaming is New York was negotiated to great extent by Dutch Director General Pieter Stuyvesant through numerous letters, which have survived to present time."

Now all this may or may not be accurate (ignoring the spelling/grammar), but how does anyone verify it? One source at the end of this long winded section, with no page. DRodgers11 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * DRodgers11, you are right. I'd suggest that we add a  tag, and if it's not given in - let's say one week - we'll remove the material. After all, there's WP:NORUSH. What do you think? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. Sounds good to me..DRodgers11 (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I shall tag the questionable material! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done! Now, let us just wait... Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You singling my edits and WP:HOUND
@Jayaguru-Shishya: I note that you have been active in Nirvana article for over a year, you did not tagbomb, nor question unsourced content nor cites, before my first substantial edit on May 31 2016. You did not demand quotations from other editors, but somehow, once again in Nirvana article, as in Satcitananda article, you have chosen to WP:HOUND and WP:HARASS me. You delete the source details I add, you make repeated false allegations such as in the section on Mittal & Thursby, as before, you ask for endless quotes only for my edits in the article you target me in, and lecture me with strange "Jayaguru rules on quotations" that are not wikipedia policies/guidelines. I feel your recent pattern of targeting my edits in Nirvana and Satcitananda, and not others in the same articles, is an attempt to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me, to undermine or discourage me from editing. I politely request that you stop such behavior. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Ms Sarah Welch. Oh boy, those are rather serious accusations you are making against me, Sarah. Well, let's have a quick look at the WP:HOUND and WP:HARASS accusations first:
 * Nirvana : My first edit on Nirvana took place on 5 October, 2014. Ever since, I've had the page on my Watch List. However, your first edit took place on 31 March, 2016 — almost one and half years later.
 * Satcitananda : My first edit on [[Satcitananda] took place on 19 November, 2014.. Ever since, I've had the page on my Watch List. However, your first edit took place on 02 February, 2016 — almost one year and three months later..
 * So, don't you find it a bit funny to blame me from WP:HOUND and WP:HARASS, even when I've been editing those articles a lot before you? And yes, I have tagged unreferenced material and asked for quotations even earlier in other articles. But please let us examine further, shall we?
 * You have made some rather substantial edits on the both articles (Nirvana, or Satcitananda) recently, haven't you? Isn't that quite normal for one to go through these changes? If you had a closer look, you'd actually notice that I've been carrying out similar edits after those of other users, such us Joshua Jonathan. But has he ever accused me of WP:HARASS for requesting pages or quotes...? Or for WP:HOUND because we happen to edit the same topic area...?
 * I kindly asked for your help with the "Mittal & Thursby (2004)" and the "Oxford Dictionaries (n.d.)" sources at the article Talk Page. After that, you come to my user Talk Page, accusing me of "false allegations" (your post above).
 * Summa summarum, I am a bit baffled over your feelings toward me right now. I am not here to hound or harass anybody; not even you. I hope, though, that you could turn on a more collaborative gear. If you are still not convinced, however, I'd advise you to file a case at any administrative forum you find necessary. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * Thanks, Sole Flounder! I've never had baklava in my life, but I'd like to give it a try one day :-P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of online encyclopedias, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Where would I be without you, DPL bot? Cheers mate! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Kosher Lucust
User:Jayaguru-Shishya, Hi! Since you were uncertain about the reference cited in that article about the Yemenite Jewish custom, I have explained the sources in the Talk-Page there. The books are in Hebrew. I have also cited a reference to the most recent edition of this book, and given a link to the book at the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Davidbena. The current source seems to be a list of Hebrew books, not the book. Moreover, I cannot find the ISBN from any database. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Jayaguru-Shishya, I have the book in my library. Would you like me to scan the Hebrew pages for you?Davidbena (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here, too, is a web-site that discusses the book. Halichot Teiman.Davidbena (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply, Davidbena. I've copied the discussion to the article Talk Page for centralized discussion. Let's continue the discussion there, shall we? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Kosher locust; to be continued there

reply
Hi, JS. I'm not in principle opposed to centralising discussion on the parent MOS talkpage, are you? Tony  (talk)  07:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Tony1! Sorry for my late reply, I've been rather busy lately, having only time to do some minor fixes and ref work. But when it comes to centralized discussion, I think WP:MOSLINK would be the correct place for linking related matters. I mean, if you see WP:MOS, it only has one single sentence when it comes to linking; WP:MOSLINK has a whole page discussing with the different nuances and specific cases. For example, I am interested in the linking guidelines, but I haven't watchlisted WP:MOS personally as it covers a whole deal of other things but hardly linking. I bet many other editors neither do, as shown by the comment by Jnestorius.
 * I'll give my response at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style soon in the following days, but basically I am opposed to the matter raised in the discussion, though. In my opinion, adding wikilinks to quotes is something that intervenes the original statement of the author; the destination article might present ideas that are totally different from the ideas that the author was talking about, or in the worst cases might present original research. For example, an inventor of something back in the year X might mistakenly be linked to the conceptions of the same thing in the future — in the year Y, let's say. Moreover, when it comes to piped links, the original say of the author could be linked to something totally different. Besides, if the object we want to wikilink in the quote doesn't exist in the rest of ther article, is it really worth of wikilinking? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No revert instead add you comment after the latest revert
See. Any further breaches let me know.

However for the sake of harmony do not revert EEng's most recent revert, because what you are trying to restore is now out of date. Instead "Add your comments at bottom if you wish". You may also add bullet points to the links to the diffs (as displayed in the relevant history lines) directly before you comments if you wish to show that you edits have been refactored. -- PBS (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, PBS is confused, No one refactored J-G's comments, but rather he refactored others edits while inserting his own, and that refactoring, by J-G, was reverted with an invitation for him to do exactly what PBS is now also telling him to do: add his or her own comments without tampering with others'. Full explanation here .  E  Eng ' 04:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your attention [[User:PBS|PBS]. You are right, the discussion has moved on in such an extent that it'd be out of date to restore the preceding edits. Instead, I will leave an updated reply to the Talk Page, including both the original points that I made, as well as my opinions considering the later occurrences.
 * With user EEng, I agree that nobody has refactored my comments; instead user EEng has removed my comments twice. If one reads the post above carefully, neither does it say that I would have refactored anybody's comments; it merely talks about restoring the original comments that were refactored. By all means, time has passed on, and I am not going to restore the original ones. Just to bear in mind, changing the preceding comments that have already been replied to, it makes it impossible for the new Talk Page participants to follow up the discussion, and it might even make the earlier comments look nonsensical as the original post were the comments were referring to have been altered.
 * Summa summarum: "You should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission" (WP:TALKNO) I'm expecting that any further conversation will take place at the appropirate Talk Page. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Jayaguru-Shishya you have made you point several times in sevearl different places, including on my talk page. The conversation has degenerated into bickering. Let the issue lie and get on with something more constructive. -- PBS (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * PBS, I took note of that as well. I think it'd be better to concentrate the discussion on one venue instead of many. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

your good faith revert on l.m
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lean_manufacturing&diff=prev&oldid=822495944 so you mean to say that "profit maximization" is not profit maximization? Come on. Please be at least explicit. What's the point here? -- Kku (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Edits
You're really meticulous! Loving your edits. Wish my students were like this :) Csgir (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Csgir! Thanks for your kind words! Even if still not a Featured Article, I really appreciate that you appreciate even the small things that one does! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It is the small things that matter, Jayaguru-Shishya most of the time. How is your journey so far as a Wikipedian? Csgir (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Indeed, indeed. Csgir, it's been rather interesting so far! I usually read articles according to my own personal interests from one extreme to another. I also feel as my responsibility to help the improve the article in the little where I can: sometimes searching information and adding references; sometimes merely improving the existing references; or sometimes just making fact-checking or grammar corrections ... oh well, and I am not very keen on unreferenced material :-)
 * Time is the most valuable resource we have, and unfortunately time has been the only constraint to me during the past couple of years. However, contributing to Wikipedia has been really rewarding to me, although maybe from time to time the volunteer work has become a little too much of a burden when there's been some fierce debates around some of the articles or Wikipedia policy changes that you don't want to miss! :-) After all, I like so much better contributing to the English Wikipedia instead of my own (Finnish) since the rules and conventions are so much clear and solid here.
 * And how's been your journey so far? Are you also editing some other language version aside of the en.wiki, or...? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Same here, Jayaguru-Shishya! My personal interests vary tremendously and copy editing is the best way here. I teach Arts in a University in India. When I found out that students were copy-pasting content from Wikipedia for their term papers, I was really irate and cursed the existence of Wikipedia :) ....this was a couple of years back and since then, I have been a regular reader of Wikipedia, given the fact that almost any Google search shows a link to Wikipedia. My respect for the editors increased manifold when I registered myself and started editing here and there. Wikipedia is a behemoth, and kudos to the editors who are making this platform a true encyclopedia by devoting hours after hours, selflessly.
 * Nothing makes me happier than finding a messy and long article, and editing it thoroughly. I am trying my hand at creating articles but it will take time to get used to all the policies. I did translate a German article into English - Robin Bell Dodson. Haven't tried after that yet. The New Page Feed is interesting and I am bit active there - draftifying articles rather than nominating for speedy deletion unless required.
 * Overall, the journey has been good. I do find a couple of editors interpreting the rules of page creation in their own way but I guess, it's tough to monitor a place with so much human participation. Loved connecting with you though :) Csgir (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

S70 -> S60 ->S60 II -> S60 III and 850 -> V70 -> V70 II
Added the necessary sources to the article without changing the text. You could take a look if those are what you want, otherwise tag it and I will bring you other sources to taste sample. Regards, 2A04:4540:903:E200:4CF7:8DDD:B2C2:C916 (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Hi, your input is requested at Talk:Theology_of_Martin_Luther with respect to possibly merging the Marian article into this one.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Scientology and the occult
Hello, I came to this article by accident and saw your heroic attempts to clean up this mess. I wonder if this is an article or a forum, I came close to a headache reading only parts. The sources are rather exotic. Cheers JimRenge (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi there, JimRenge. Nice to see you around as well! To be honest, I haven't even read the article in whole, so I don't know if I should reply you by giving thanks or a legal disclaimer :-) Yeah, the parts I've tried to clean up were an absolute mess, and I expect there's a lot of work waiting ahead still. I found my way to the article by following a wikilink on a related page, and have been making edits one paragraph at the time. I've tried to rescue some of the refs as well, although I'm not sure if they even passed for WP:RS. :-P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)