User talk:Tao2911

Here's ma talk, ya'll. Use it, don't abuse it. : )

Suspicion of sockpuppetry
Hi Tao, I found the closed case on my return from vacation. I think the reason you gave for drawing me into this cause, i.e. the number of my edits, was a little bit on the weak side. Another time, please look at the content of the edits, instead of simply counting them. No hard feelings nevertheless ! Cheers, RacconishTk 09:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Racconish- sorry about that. As I'm sure you noticed, this case was messy, with at least four editors adding names and IP's to that list, casting a wide net and scooping up a number of socks and/or meats. I didn't think you were a sock per se, but I did look at some of your edits and your page and thought there was at least a possibility of collusion, especially considering how very many ID's were involved, and how the page even as you were editing was patently promotional. Sorry to mis-take you if I did. Cheers!Tao2911 (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes you did ! But I forgive you. Happy editing, RacconishTk 14:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably should have spoken up sooner. Racconish is anonymous like most of the rest of us but I'm sufficiently familiar with this editor's contributions over many months to be convinced beyond any doubt that there is no possibility whatsoever that he or she socks or meats for anyone.  This is a smart, nice, constructive person who, in my experience, demonstrates both good faith and good acts, helping to build a better encyclopedia.  I have never seen Racconish display a personal agenda.  Msnicki (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Heartfelt thanks ! RacconishTk 16:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD
We've won and we should be good winners. A weak keep when all the other votes are deletes is still only a single weak keep. Even Jesanj has thrown in the towel. I think we should avoid looking shrill and leave others room to offer minority opinions without dissecting every one of them. Msnicki (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * sure, point taken.Tao2911 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

An example
FYI, I think you take too hard of a line sometimes. At the recent discussion debate for Marisol Deluna you claimed "other editors here have clearly shown [the NYT wedding announcement] to not be a valid source", which completely disregards my "no it's OK because it meets the requirements of WP:SELFPUB" argument that I've made in a couple places. Now others have repeated this argument. It seems sometimes you don't listen. Please listen and consider the reasoned arguments of others. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * this kind of commentary really serves no purpose. It's basically just an insult ("you don't listen.") the fact is actually I just don't agree. And another editor I feel slam dunked the argument against using the source beyond even my points. If other editors agree with our assessment, I don't think that means I apologize to you. Keep making your points and keep on the topic. Cheers and happy editingTao2911 (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC).


 * My apologies. I could have worded that better. You said "without a vetted source I don't trust her claims" on the talk page. That seems to argue WP:SELFPUB doesn't matter because you don't like the person. I found that to be an odd response to me pointing our verifiability policy. Best. Jesanj (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The information you have on the SGI is 1000% incorrect which is why I completely changed it.
First of all your spelling of the Soka Gakkai is incorrect. Secondly we have no affliation with George M. Williams anymore. Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo is a chant we do not refer to it as a mantra. And how dare you refer to the Soka Gakkai the largest Buddhism in the world, in over 192 countries and territories as a "minor sect" of Buddhism.

Please stop slanding the law for you will suffer of insessient suffering.

Alisage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.183.246 (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. One of those. First of all, there is no such thing as "1000%" and clearly the section is not even 100% incorrect - much of it is quite verifiable, if more objective than you would clearly like it to be. Second, "law" is a terrible translation of the term "Dharma" and virtually no one uses it now; your fundamentalist fear-mongering does not go down well here (proof for anyone interested that Buddhism does indeed have fundamentalists as narrow minded as in any other religion). Lastly, I didn't write any of the section in question, "sland" anyone, nor am I experiencing "of insessient suffering" (I suggest you use spell/grammar check, and not necessarily correct others' spelling). Other editors wrote the section. Editors who used sources. And who know how to edit here. Continue down this road and you will experience "of incessant blocking" for disruptive editing. Or on the other hand, you could simply find some decent sources, and use them to correct any material you feel could be made more accurate - however, from your comments here I have my doubts you'll have much interest in historical accuracy or neutrality.Tao2911 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * to reiterate my comment on your talk page: "Hello- welcome to Wikipedia. It appears you created a user ID to make edits to only one article, Buddhism in the United States. The edits you made there are not acceptable. They demonstrate a very forceful single 'Point of View" and this violates the principle of remaining neutral here. Here is a helpful page describing the guideline: WP:NPOVT. I would also suggest that you review general editing guidelines: WP:GUIDELINE. Your formatting was likewise not in keeping with WP standards (inline links, no sources for contentious claims, etc.) Remember - this is not the place to push your point of view, for or against Nichiren or any sect derived from his teachings or traditions, or any others."

Fixed
Silly mistake on my part, the other fellow will have to change his username as it is against policy to copy another's as he has. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * yeah I figured something like that - the name is problematic, if for no other reason than its so polemical. But in this particular instance, he simply wasn't the sock offender. Thanks for your work on this!Tao2911 (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

M Roach WP:BLP

 * Hi - Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard - there is a report about some disputed content - please join in the discussion there and seek WP:Consensus for the desired addition - thanks -  You  really  can  21:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Roach edit warring warning
do not edit war disputed content such as this when it is under discussion at the BLP noticeboard - please take this as a warning - if you continue I will report you and request your editing privileges are removed - You  really  can  22:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I simply replaced the info, removed the source you found weak, and added the sources you requested. But seeing your page, and that you were once off2riorob, well...Tao2911 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go to the BLP noticeboard report and present your case - if your correct within policy I will also support your addition - You  really  can  22:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael Roach‎ COI
Hi - Are you are real life opponent of Michael Roach‎? You clearly have a WP:COI - can you make my WP life a bit easier and just accept you are conflicted and state that you will stop editing the biography - WP:BLP -  You  really  can  20:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My god, you are such a dick, Rob. Always and in every context. Points for consistency, though.Tao2911 (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

POV
"Long POV quote totally inappropriate! This Josh John guy is radically editing dozens of Zen pages, with many problems." So, what's the POV, what's inappropriate, and what are the "many problems"? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Stuart Lachs
Hi Tao. Do you know the articles by Stuart Lachs? You might like them; he's quite critical of Zen in the USA. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What does this mean? Yes I know Lachs. While he makes some occasional good points, I think he's a bit of a crank. Myself, I am only critical of bad editing about Zen.Tao2911 (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see. He also wrote an article on Eido Shimano, which might provide a source for the Wikipedia-article on him. I thought it might be of interest to you. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but this is old news. That page is a hornet's nest. It's ok for now.Tao2911 (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Genpo
Crud - I was adding in details from that clinical trial on "Big Mind" while you were editing/reverting the article, and it looks like I rolled over your revert when I published. Sorry about that! Jikaku (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! I wondered - normally you are on the side of light! lol. No prob.Tao2911 (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Roach
You have now reached the limit of WP:3RR on Michael Roach. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What have I reverted? What on earth are you talking about?Tao2911 (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Restoring stuff is reverting. Look, I've advised Abhayakara on 3RR, it's only fair that I advise you as well.  I suppose you could keep editing until someone else intervenes and edits the article, but you now have 3 "groups" of edits within 24 hours, and some of the edits in each group are clearly reverts.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You better make some specific points here. Someone took out "non-traditional", not because its innacurrate, but because the placement was confusing. I moved it, and reworked the line. Other sourced information was removed, due purely to bias - I checked sources, and rewrote to include, incorporating other's edits. Respectfully, you are wrong here. Totally wrong.Tao2911 (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Being "right" about one's edits does not mean that one's edits are not reverts. (Everyone always thinks their edits are right.)  Look, I'm not trying to give you a hard time and I'm not objecting to any particular edit.  My message was intended as a friendly piece of advice about 3RR.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand, and don't want to bust your chops, but I know what revert is, and I maintain that I didn't. When I replaced material, I attempted to meet the bias of Abyhakara half way when possible - for instance, s/he chopped the controversy mention in lead, while leaving and even adding to positive spin. So I just removed all detail, leaving lines saying he's done some stuff, and there is some controversy. That kind of thing, in every instance. This is editing. I have time today. So it goes.Tao2911 (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

own roach
Hi - I removed your addition - diff - for reason/s that there is no independent reporting of the issue - please don't replace without consensus support through talkpage discussion - thanks - You  really  can  22:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

HI - this is not a WP:RS - http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/05/tragedy-at-diamond-mountain-an-update/#idc-cover - that would assert any notability - please remove the disputed content from the biography of a living person and move to discussion - thanks -  You  really  can  23:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * this source's reliability is already established by having been used by other tertiary sources, plural, used in article, including the New York times than not only quotes it, but links to it. Also, Elephant Journal is bona fide. It's a pay journal, online AND print, with staff, writers, etc.Tao2911 (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. You really  can  16:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * you clearly demonstrate a pattern of siding with this biased editor intent on whitewashing, or in this case, out of frustration simply discrediting the page. Why not wade in and show where there is bias, and anything out of line with sources?Tao2911 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the bias, you just won't see/admit/accept it. -  You  really  can  16:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * what, that I don't like you? I don't see what else you are talking about, since I don't have any opinion about this guy whatsoever, only that 10 news stories should be accurately represented.Tao2911 (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You said the other day that the subject of the article was distorting the golden teachings or something along those lines, didn't you? - You  really  can  16:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't! And this is exactly the kind of nonsense that I find so frustrating. I put in quotes, and said it was a quote, that a critic of Roach said that IN A SOURCE. Abhayakara misread it, said it was me - and a whole thread was derailed from his illiteracy (and this is one of a half dozen similar gaffs on his part.) Now you just repeat it, and take it as an excuse to get me blocked, while lying about the edit history to boot (the POV tag wasn't yours, and I did not revert three times). Nice work.Tao2911 (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edits at Michael Roach
The report at WP:AN3 asserts that you've broken the 3RR rule at Michael Roach and that you've engaged in a pattern of removal of the POV tag. If you make no effort to respond at the noticeboard, it is likely that you will be sanctioned. Some editors have stated that a short block will be insufficient. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * well I was away from computer and wasn't able to respond. Just like to say that editor youreallycan has showed bias against me personally before. He lied at the board saying I reverted HIS POV tag, when I reverted twice, explained why and asked that an independent editor replace if deemed necessary (with explaination); and it wasn't his tag, it was Abhyakara's, who has been repeatedly warned for POV issues, edit warring, and whitewashing the page. I made dozens of highly constructive edits to that page, incorporating and addressing nearly all of Abhayakara's concerns, solely excepting his repeated desire to simply remove all info he deems "negative" about his admitted guru. So, clearly I disagree with the decision, but whatever. I will happily return to life. Just keep an eye on that page, kids. Abhayakara is sure to be at it with a vengeance, and other editors there have been less than thorough (leaving huge gaps, and making the page have less than real sense).Tao2911 (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of forty-eight hours for edit-warring at Michael Roach. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Note that I don't consider your promise in your latest edit summary that you wouldn't revert again to hold any weight. You were informed that your 3RR violation was reported to WP:AN3 and you still continued to edit war. More earnest than promising not to revert again is to not revert at all (or self-revert). And you didn't do that. --  tariq abjotu  18:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion requested
Hi Tao2911. Could you give your opinion at Talk:Sherry Chayat? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Requesting third opinion on Spirituality
Hi Tao2911. Could you give a third opinion on Spirituality? See Talk:Spirituality, Talk:Spirituality, Talk:Spirituality and Talk:Spirituality. I'm asking you because of your independent and critical style of editing. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the appreciation, but after a cursory glance I can't quite find my way into the issues on that page. If I have more time I might try later. Looks like you have an obstreperous editor with serious POV problems - I suggest you get some admin supervision and see if that clears the way for a saner climate to make changes. Good luck!Tao2911 (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you had any integrity, you wouldn't nominate someone for blocking without 'knowing what is going on here'. Also, if you really are a college professor you would not defer to someone in your own field if that person had no professional qualifications in the subject. This is standard etiquette in academic culture. Mr Jonathan has no professional education in the field (even at the undergraduate level), has no experience of publishing and is not a native speaker of English. His many errors of grammar and syntax demonstrate this admirably. These are not ad hominem attacks but statements of fact. As an academic your profession obliges you to defer to someone who is internationally recognised in the field over someone who has no formal education in the field whatsoever. As a result of your haste you have not only caused another editor to report me for blocking but you are causing many months of hard work by a community of committed editors to be undone by someone who has very little knowledge of the subject. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * you clearly have issues, and here's hoping for an IP block ASAP. The only point I will address since you keep making it: you say "As an academic your profession obliges you to defer to someone who is internationally recognised (sic) in the field over someone who has no formal education in the field whatsoever". This is not how wikipedia works. you are not a "certified expert" here. There is no tenure. You are just another monkey with a keyboard like the rest of us. So, in a word, please shove your expertise somewhere more useful.Tao2911 (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Lova Falk    talk   08:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Dae Gak
Hi Tao2911. Could you have a look at Dae Gak? You've been involved before; I'm just reading the Talk Page now, so you're probbaly a better judge. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Christmas tree
It's just a christmas tree, all those titles and bling-bling for DM...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say so exactly. It's more the issue of him muddying the waters, mixing his business/self-help/pop psychology with his authentic Zen bona fides. He is a Soto priest; being a priest does not make you "enlightened". In fact, as his generation especially demonstrates, it can lead to a lot of inflation and confusion. He said he was going to "turn in his robes", ie stop being a priest. I wish he would've followed through - but no, he was "begged" (he claims) not to do so (by one guy - failing to give any heed to the three dozen that asked him to follow through). What would Zen do without him? (More quickly recover and flourish, I'd say.)Tao2911 (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've checked (again) all of his titles; it's actually just the normal Zen-curriculum. But it is presented as "big stuff", like "look what I've accomplished!" That's what irritates me; it's a sales-talk. guess you're right about "muddying the waters" etc. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=612675816 your edit] to Dennis Merzel 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) 20:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * zuise]] in Japan (ceremonial "abbot-for-one-night" rituals at the head temples of the Soto school), and in 1988 he was officially installed as abbot of Hosshinji Zen temple

Big Mind Process
I read the research-paper; very insightful...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Good work on Adi Da
You have made the article historically accurate. Thanks! Dseer (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks! I worked hard on that durn page! So happy all the fights ended and it stabilized now for years, pretty much.Tao2911 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 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) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proud Boys
I'm assuming you know about WP:3RR. If not, now you do. The burden is on you to get consensus for controversial changes. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Your recent editing history at Proud Boys shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * total douchebaggery.Tao2911 (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)