User talk:LhunGrub

August 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Buddha-nature. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Madhyamaka
I very much welcome your additions to the Madhyamaka article, however, your statement about 'the distillation of all of Buddhism' really has to be rewritten. See my discussion on the talk page! 20040302 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Madhyamaka, Talk:Madhyamaka#Gorampa.2FGeluk_Polemic_replacement". Thank you. --20040302 (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Shaivism. It is especially important to provide an edit summary, or a note on the talk page, when removing sourced text. Sunray (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Madhyamaka. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

More on Madhyamaka
Thank you for your reply on the article talk page. I see that you have again added un-sourced changes to the article. Please see my detailed response to you at Talk: Madhyamaka. Note that one of the most important policies for article editors is Verifiability. It is also important to bear in mind that this is a collaborative project. Editorial decisions are made by consensus. As you seem to have good knowledge of this subject, I hope you will stick around and work on this. Sunray (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Śūnyatā. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You made this statement: "Therefore Mahayana's Śūnyatā, but not Theravada, preserves the original attitude of early Buddhism..." The contention that one tradition of Buddhism has the "correct" understanding of an important concept is not language that we normally use in Wikipedia (please refer to What Wikipedia is not). While your idea is something that might be discussed in the body of the article, with reference to several citations from different traditions, Wikipedia should avoid claims that one tradition "preserves the original attitude of early Buddhism" and another does not. Sunray (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you understand NPOV. To say that Germans invaded France during World War II is an academic fact, not a violation of NPOV. Provide an academic source that suggests that Theravada's aggregates are indeed empty. LhunGrub (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Madhyamaka. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SudoGhost 20:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. The general rule is "one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block." Sunray (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.