User talk:Moonsell

/Sandbox

May 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=719498384 your edit] to Tibetan Buddhism 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) 01:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * it implies a discontinuity between Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, the term has been discredited.

Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar)
Hello, I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar) that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. Please comment on content, not on contributors when you contribute to article talk pages. If you want to discuss the behaviour of a fellow editor you can do this on his personal talk page or at WP:ANI. Walls of text are not really helpful. Please see WP:TALK and WP:DR for more info. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice, Jim. Not only are the things you urge timely, but the way you write is a model for how I need to get a grip on my words that is even more powerful.


 * Moonsell (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Your question at Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar)
Because your question has nothing to do with improving the article in any way, could you please remove it? It should have been placed on my talk page instead.

To answer your question on how I came across the article: I looks like I was investigating the spamming and promotion of studybuddhism.com against a conflict of interest by. Why do you ask? --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Once again that's not informative.


 * 2. I started the discussion respectfully, helpfully, assuming good faith on your talk page. You weren't interested but specifically didn't want the talk there. You yourself four months ago started the new discussion where it is. Now is not the time to chop and change.


 * 3. From the start I tried to give you a heads-up about sensitivities with the editing you were hinting at. Now it doesn't concern just you and me and the question has become a crucial one, particularly in that discussion.


 * Moonsell (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you want at this point. It's not clear to me that you have read and understand my response.
 * My concern with your question is that it has nothing to do with improving this encyclopedia in any way, nor do I see how it improves our working together. Maybe you could explain why you asked the question and what you want to achieve by discussing the topic? --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No response? --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Still no response? --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ronz, this is playing games. You know the discussion is already at Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar). It has been ongoing for four months and is not finished. Moonsell (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've asked some simple questions to clarify if you are even reading my responses and to determine what purpose these discussions serve. You are choosing not to answer? --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll assume then you choose not to answer. Could you please withdraw the question then? --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you please move on?
I see no purpose to your further comments at this point. Could you please stop them? We're getting no where with the discussions here and on the article talk page. There are other steps you can take to resolve whatever dispute you still see, outlined in WP:DR. Could you choose some alternative, or simply move on? --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''Moonsell, I understand that you are unhappy with the discussion but additional personal attacks against Ronz may lead to complaints about your behaviour. You wrote "The first attack, in late July 2016 began with trolling contributors here with tags [now redacted, but see the beginning of this discussion, above]." Accusations ("trolling") without evidence (diffs) is regarded as a personal attack and I do not expect that you can provide evidence which might convince administrators that Ronz is guilty of Trolling. Please make better use of your time and improve the article with reliable, independent secondary sources. Thanks'' JimRenge (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it might be best for you to revert your most recent contributions to Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar), and instead focus on finding a solution to this dispute. Any problems if I reverted it, and started an RfC to review the content changes? --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Jim and Ronz, we're all volunteers here. If we met we might well be friends. I have no problem with either of you personally. If you think I have, show me how.


 * Behaviour is another matter. I promise you, I don't criticise capriciously and not for its own sake. There has to be something important at stake to drag me out of my shell.


 * As you know, I have never contributed to the Berzin article, and we all know it's not an important one. However, there are two problems:


 * a) the ethics of the editing practices I feel you've made a show of there. It's all in the talk and not just by me.


 * b) the problem of what to expect from you in future. There are other more important articles which I worry are not safe from this treatment. Some touch on the content (that once was) of the Berzin article. They are quality things that have developed over years and that quality is what's at stake.


 * I've seen editing like this on a smaller scale before and in consequence I find I've taken a back seat on WP more and more, as I have till lately on the Berzin article. Ronz's most recent post in the talk vividly revives the question in my mind of what we can expect from you in future.


 * Talk of trolling has upset you both especially. You've found it hurtful. I've been reticent all along to call it that. From my side, it's taken me a year to spit it out. Thank you for your measured responses but once again, please, please, reread the talk carefully from the beginning. Even at this stage, don't just scan. Ask yourself if you're really seeing the other side and give some sign that you are. Please take the time to see what the talk is saying.


 * What comes across clearly to me as edit warring is not the same thing as being outraged about it and I once heard something that's hard to forget: "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept." Ronz has had ample scope to reassure us he wasn't trolling as well as all the rest: above all that he gets it with other people's values and won't bulldoze them.


 * There's something missing here and it's a worry. Actions speak louder than words, so to look at the Berzin article now… Don't trivialise this. Above all, we need you to reassure us about what we can expect from you in future.
 * Moonsell (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ask yourself if you're really seeing the other side and give some sign that you are. Please take the time to see what the talk is saying. If you've ever tried to do this, I must have missed it. Apparently, you've missed mine. Are you interested in addressing this yourself?
 * Above all, we need you to reassure us about what we can expect from you in future. Who is "us"? --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed the comment.
 * I'm not clear on how a proper RfC can be made around this dispute. Obviously, there is objection over the removal of the copyright-violating content. I've not paid too much attention, but I believe there were some efforts to put the biography that was copied into public domain. That doesn't mean we can simply restore it all, citing it to the webpage. At best it's a self-published, primary source. What we could use it to verify is extremely limited. I could write up an RfC around some imagined attempt to restore all the information from the biography, but I don't think there's any chance it would help. I don't see how we could do anything but repeat Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive245. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Moonsell, I received an email query about copyright violation but am not sure how to send my reply so I am putting it here. It appears to me the yuge problem about Dr Berzin's article jumped on by certain other editors is that a person unskilled in Wikipedia editing (not me!) simply copied and pasted here the good Dr's potted bio from one of his websites without permission. Some pedantic watchdog accused this poor naive person of copyright violation and plagiarism. Someone wrote to the Dr to get his permission to use the potted bio which was willingly provided, but a mistake was made in that the permission was related to a different version of the potted bio. Again the warriors of righteousness leapt onto this horrible bungled effort to appease them and all sorts of nasty notices and deletions of text followed. What I suggest is that someone cobbles together a new potted bio roughly based on different potted bios that have been published about the good Dr o his websites old and new and on conferences he might have attended as a contributor or speaker. But it should be re-worded in a general manner to avoid the accusations of copyright violation and plagiarism by those who have it in for Dr Berzn and the people trying to write something about him here. Who, sadly, remind me of Trump's childish, nay, infantile rants and attacks on anyone he does not like. I started learning to be an WP editor on subjects I know a little about and am astonished at the unsympathetic attitudes taken by certain people who I would have thought ought to know better. But WP is like that, there are many good editors working here in friendly and enjoyable cooperation as well. We just have to take the rough with the smmooth. Please let me know how I can email back to you in case the dreaded WP ogres will now jump on me for breaking all the rules of civility and so forth here. MacPraughan (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I see. It's obviously gotten quite convoluted. Maybe it's just too hard. Moonsell (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

tibet
youre anywhere with anyone else on the understanding of things as they are found - I dont think you'll get many answers - there is a peculiar smell to the range of articles and the confusions that arise between content and context - anyone's guess imho. JarrahTree 12:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have found earlier comments you have made - not sure I can either help or offer any counsel on the issues you raise - the nature of the beast is best to walk away for a while, and come back in a manner of speaking. JarrahTree 12:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those thoughts, JarrahTree. Moonsell (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tibetan Buddhism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chan ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Tibetan_Buddhism check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Tibetan_Buddhism?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Schools of Tibetan Buddhism (May 6)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Heliosxeros was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Schools of Tibetan Buddhism and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Schools of Tibetan Buddhism, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Schools_of_Tibetan_Buddhism Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heliosxeros&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Schools_of_Tibetan_Buddhism reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

EROS message 09:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhism
You've removed valuable information twice now; the second time without any discussion, but simply stating "wrong source." Definitely not appreciated. Please respect Wiki-policies, and discuss this at the talkpage. And let me remind you that you were blocked in 2014 for edit-warring at Tibetan Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  13:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Schools of Tibetan Buddhism


Hello, Moonsell. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Schools of Tibetan Buddhism".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ― Abelmoschus  Esculentus  05:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your most recent edits
Hi Moonsell. I'm not sure what to say here that can help the situation. I hope this won't escalate further. --Hipal (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)