User talk:Langdell~enwiki

Thanks for your note. I agree with you that Taoism has had a significant impact on these three countries and it would be good to reflect that. I'm not sure how best to do that, though (see my note on the Tao talk page). It seems to me to be somewhat cumbersome to include all those words in the lead sentence of the Tao article. Perhaps someone will have some suggestions as to an alternative. Sunray 05:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, and welcome to Wikipedia! For a new user you seem to be finding your way around Wikipedia pretty well and have been making some nice additions to articles. Here are a few tips:

• Peruse Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages
• You might want to put a few words on your User page (so it won't appear as a red link). It is your space to do what you wish with.
• Ask questions on Wikipedia:Village pump
• Have fun.

Sunray 07:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Hallo Langdell. Just a note to say that I love your new Introduction to the "Dharmakaya" article. Excellent. It's always a joy to see something "positive" and "affirmative" communicated of the Buddha's Dharma - rather than the usual suffering, suffering, suffering, impermanence, pain, suffering, non-Self, suffering, nothingness and more suffering - and then the goal of Nothingness!! As you will have guessed, I believe that type of nihilistic emphasis is so very distortionist of the Buddha's "real" teaching. Anyway, thanks for your very fine piece on the Dharmakaya. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the aforementioned article was reverted, as it was not cited, and was original research. Please do not use Wikipedia as a repository for original research. bibliomaniac15 23:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you should seriously provide a source, or it may happen to you again from some other person. bibliomaniac15 00:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Langdell - thankyou for your input on the jiva article, however there is more than one opinion on what exactly the jiva is. Advaita schools equate the atma with Brahman, but Dvaita schools do not - they differentiate between the two. Similarly for traditions following the dvaita schools the words 'jiva' and 'atman' mean much the same thing (in most contexts - there are exceptions) so for the article to adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy it is incorrect to show only one argument or the other - both viewpoints much be given and explained. Your edits sided heavily with the advaita philosophy only. Ys, GourangaUK 10:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:Jiva&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Jiva is defined as 'The individual soul or divine within', 'The embodied soul' , 'life, vital principle, individual soul', 'Sentient living being. Embodied self.' It does not refer to the body, nor does it refer to a soul in ignorance (that is specific to certain traditions only and usually jiva is prefixed with another word) - it is very similar to the word atma. It is like the difference between saying the 'living being' and 'the self' in English - both are different phrases used in different contexts - but both point towards the same singular or differential reality of being. I appreciate your comments and have adjusted the article to show this much clearer than before. Best Wishes, ys GourangaUK 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About your edit [1]: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Regebro 11:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recommended video clip, all it says is that the 9/11 Commission didn't blame anyone. That was its purpose. That's why it's not the best source, and why conclusions of engineering experts are more useful. I don't understand what you think is so surprising about politicians being less than honest and avoiding responsibility. Peter Grey 02:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could add a footnote of a work that says Maspero's work is the most important. I looked around briefly in the works I have access to at the moment (Robinet and Schipper), along with a few web searches and couldn't find anything that suggests other than the fact it is one of the first works about Taoism, it is still considered the seminal work about Taoism. In my opinion (from looking at the book as it sits in front of me), it seems pretty scattered and old-fashioned. So I'm just not convinced as to its current importance, especially with new works that have recently come out. Hopefuly you can prove me wrong.Zeus1234 20:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me of the merit of Maspero. I actually do have a copy of the book at the moment, but it is from the library. Perhaps I could photocopy it for you? Let me know if you want this to be done. Of course, I will have to look into costs as well.Zeus1234 23:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have deleted the line you added to the introduction of the Anatta article since it seems to beg the question. Also it does not seem very helpful at this time when the whole of the Anatta article is a bit of a mess anyway. Perhaps you could re-insert it later in the article, reworded to NPOV.--Stephen Hodge 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Kundalini, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Buddhipriya 01:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. But I don't see how that passage can stand as it is. Consider the first sentence: "Today, scientists call the creative principle at work in the universe the ‘principle of self-organisation.’" Which scientists? What exactly did they say? At the very least it needs a citation. But more importantly, how do we know that what these scientists are referring to relates to Tao? There needs to be a link. Also, Tao is more than simply "the creative principle." So the wording of that passage seems fatally flawed to me. I will await your further comments before trying to fix it. Sunray 15:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not supposed to add any templates to the featured articles. Please remove them, discuss your issues on the talk page, and you can add them after it's off the main page. Thanks. Zain 16:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Please do not add them while this is on the main page. Discuss your issues on the talk page first and consider letting another editor add the tag, keeping in mind that a great deal of consensus-building has gone into the article's current state. Savidan 16:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please see my reply to your talk page comment here, Langdell. you may undo the change cited if you wish. ITAQALLAH 17:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Langdell, when you wrote, "To define Islam as meaning simply 'submission' or 'surrender' is a subtle form of villification and distortion that puts into the mind of the naive the notion that Islam somehow requires 'submission and surrender'," what kind of reaction did you expect? There may be some who hope that it will have this effect, and I have certainly heard it misused in the way you describe - for another type of misuse, see the title of the movie "Submission" - but it also happens to be the most straightforward translation. What are we supposed to do, substitute a long-winded exegesis to protect readers from being manipulated by someone else? That would be propagating our own misinformation.Proabivouac 03:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right Langdell. Under no circumstances can Jainism and Buddhism can be considered as derivatives of vedic religion. Nastika was more often an derogatory term for those traditions who did not accept sanctity of vedas. --Anish (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Langdell, the uncouth and unconstructivr language that you've used in my talk page is totally unacceptable. If the issue was simply repetition of one sentence, you couldve done it yourself easily before hurling charges of vandalism. What's more, you've interacted with me only once and have the gumption to lecture me in my talk page about what you call, "decent behaviour" ? Are you preemptively implying that I am undecent or such forth ? That too on our very first meet ? The next time I see such language from you in my talk page, expect an admin call. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Langdell, I suggest that you first try out for a consensus with IAF on points of dispute. I can see that neither of you have tried to discuss the issue out or reason out the points, on the talk pages of Dharma. This makes it difficult for an admin to determine on "who is disruptive." And admin action or intervention is highly unlikely in this case. Hope this helps.--Anish (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't have the time to investigate his actions. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Langdell -

I appreciate your kind and thoughtful replies to my talk page and the article's talk page. I desire to reply in a similar fashion and ask that you be patient as it will likely take several days due to obligations IRL.

FWIW, as indicated in the article's first footnote, the translation is based on Bhikkhu Bodhi as well as John Bullitt; but, I would definitely like to further explore additional resources (e.g., the so-called "reliable sources" of university professors, in case they might say anything of value [not bloody likely!], as well Nyanatiloka, etc.) before responding on the talk page. I'm fine, of course, with the "disputed" tag at the top of the article until we resolve this, however long that might take.

Also, FWIW, if you look at this thread on my talk page, User_talk:Larry_Rosenfeld#gradual_training, you'll see that when this article was first conceived and initially incarnated (around 11/05/07) by User:Dhammapal, it in fact was called Anupubbi-katha. (Actually, to the best of my knowledge, the originally idea for this article was conceived on talk pages by User:Sacca back around November 2006.) Given the current disputation, I regret that I think it was I who convinced Dhammapal to change the article's title to Gradual Training (based primarily on Bodhi and Bullitt) due to such making it more readily found by WP searchers (though, evidently by your reasoning, erroneously!). After we further explore available material more deeply, out of respect for Dhammapal's initial intention, if our findings lead us to such then (as one possible option) I'm more than open to moving the current article back to Anupubbi-katha and leaving Gradual training for your own views.

If I may just make one request, is there any way we can combine (preferably chronologically) the last two sections of Talk:Gradual_training, as the first deals with my initial statement on this matter (Talk:Gradual_training#.C4.81nupubb.C4.AB-kath.C4.81_or_anupubba-sikkh.C4.81_.3F) and the second yours (Talk:Gradual_training#Kathā and Sikhā) -- this way our dialogue could readily continue in one thread.

Thanks again for your thoughtful dilligence. With metta,
Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I now believe you're right, I'm wrong. Kudos to you for your patience and thoughtful dialogue. Please see Talk:Gradual training for more info and thoughts about how now to proceed. (Hey, in my defence, I was initially basing my framing of the issue on the statements of another WP editor ;-) ) I'm very sorry for being an obstacle for a couple of days here and very much regret any negative feelings I may have caused. Beyond what's written on the aforementioned talk page, if there's anything more you'd like me to say or do to make amends, please just let me know. Humbly, with metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your user page. What does it mean? AppleJuggler (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the intro rewrite! :-)   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. That intro is just someone's opinion. No sources are cited for it. We're trying to improve the text, & you're welcome to contribute constructively on the talk page, but please follow Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. There are numerous opinions about what, if anything, Buddhism is, & Wikipedia must not take sides. Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with the fundamental principles of Wikipedia as stated in WP:NPOV, WP:NOR & WP:V. Then either abide by them or go elsewhere on the internet. If you persist in violating them the authorities are liable to ban you.

To summarize briefly. Wikipedia is not based on our deciding for ourselves what the truth is. That would simply result in enless revert wars between people with different ideas of truth. They've never managed to agree in real life, so why would they do so in WP? Therefore it is based instead on citing reliable 3rd party sources. Where those disagree it simply reports their different points of view & does not take sides. This means that we can reach agreement on what Wikipedia should say, rather than endlessly reverting each other. If you think an important point of view has been omitted or underrepresented, then you can try to find a way of adding it, not censoring all the other opinions, or you can raise it on the talk page & discuss how to deal with it. This is what we've been doing on this article for a while before you intervened, & what I above invited you to join in. It's no good your asserting that everyone agrees with you. You have to provide citations from reliable sources. Buddhist writers are reliable sources for their own views. They're not experts on the opinions of the other 300000000 Buddhists, though if they're prominent we can assume that there are significant numbers who agree. Therefore the main sources of citations must be scholars who have studied Buddhism as a whole, or a large slice of it. Then any Buddhist views not mentioned by those scholarly sources we've found so far can be added as lternative views. Peter jackson (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've reverted to my edit, while keeping most part of the previous edits intact. Some important points about what, when, how and where needed to be added.

To you it may not sound "universal", but the fact is that Dharma arose in India and still is an quite Indian term, even though in larger morality I agree with you that it must surely one day transcend all humanity. Also, it is a religious term with all 4 Dharmic faiths emphasizing it. I agree that those wanting to know more about Dharma needn't join a Hindu-ized cult like Rajneesh; it's in agreement with all major faiths of the world. Thanks and good day. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Langdel, sir, if you may even try to engage in a dialogue on the talk page of the Dharma article, it would be far more constructive and inclusive. But I see that you do not explain your reversions on the talk page, and instead issue warnings on my talk page (seems habitual).

Please note that without any discussion on the talk page, your reversions are devalued and hence will not get much chance to be justified. A prolonged behaviour like this from you will be seen as disruption and ultimately as vandalism. I hope you are aware of that. As for your view on the so-called "disruptions" that I've done on Dharma, my edits mention verifiable facts and are well constructed on the article, and above all, they are explained on the talk page of the article. So I would strongly urge you to come to the negotiating table on the talk-page of Dharma and try to sort out any problems that you may have. In light of this, your "warnings" on my talk page do not hold any water.

Thank you. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropped a line to give my thanks for your edits to Jainism. Cheers.--Anish (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note for you on the Buddhism and science talk page. - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your input does not reflect the source I used for the article (and that you left to source your input after replacing mine with yours). Can you name a more current source that would supersede my source? Obviously one that is also Greek like mine (a Greek Professor from a Greek University) rather then say European and American. You seem to be short changing ontology and its dialects as they are used or expressed epistemologically (aka the metaphysics of Aristotle [2]). Forgive me but you seem to not know the meaning of the word ontic (as in ontology in contrast to deontic and nominalism). LoveMonkey (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? What editor are you referring to -"An editor (correctly) modified your statement making it known to the reader that this is an opinion of Eastern Orthodox theology"? Since I removed an unsourced assumption you see John D. Turner is not an Eastern Orhodox theologian. What scholars of the East have set these criteria (where these events occurred and where the word orginates)? What does your response have to do with your original question and my response to it. This reads like your lecturing to me. Please dont lecture me. Please stay on point with your original question. Also provide a source for your above POV one that establishes it as the defacto academic standard for the English world, since it seems highly unlikely the word gnosis is used commonly in India and other Oriental/Asian cultures. As a concept (spiritual knowledge) it again is a loan word as such, dialection carries baggage. Nobody owns Greek but the Greeks. Since you are explicitly stating that "the gnostics" have an exclusive on the word gnosis. Which you are stating and exemplifying by giving them primacy (unsourced I might add) in their mention and treatment in the article so far. The gnostics being everything -for the most part -but Greek. I find your criteria abit "unacademic". Maybe it would be appropriate to start a spiritual knowledge article instead. Note though your sentence that I removed does not validately fit into the concept there either.

LoveMonkey (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 23:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What shame you stated back to me my very point. As if you made it. You should create a spiritual knowledge article. Just like I stated. Also note spiritual knowledge just wont jive with your sentence that I removed in the first place. The study of the nature of gnosis is Gnosiology sometimes contrasted with Epistemology which concerns representational knowledge unlike gnosis which is the unmediated knowledge of things as they are. As for the English language its rules clearly dictate that it is better to use the translation then the original word. So again more motivation to create a spiritual knowledge article since in the Philokalia the term "spiritual knowledge" is used through out it not the word "gnosis". Have a nice day. Pls further this dialog on the gnosis talkpage per wiki policy, which you have now started to quote me. LoveMonkey (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I begrudgingly have to admit a very clear improvement with your contribution to the intrduction to the theoria article. But Langdell it is absolutely most critical to discern between theoria and hesychasm. Hesychasm is prayer, theoria is actually seeing God for short moments or for long stretches of time (aka saints like Basil, Nyssa, Symeon, Nikitos). The two are very specific things: theoria is not the prayer of the heart. Also cross religious studies belong in general subjects (i.e contemplation) not culturally specific ones ie theoria, theosis. However come back to the article, since none of the copyedit league have gotten to it yet. Your contributions are most welcome and appreciated (as long as they are not confusing or completely incorrect like examples I pointed out already). LoveMonkey (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here just such a mess Emanation (Eastern Orthodox Christianity) that might warrant your attention as you have expressed it Mr Langdell. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Langdell, following our discussion, I confirm that I'm the informal mediator for the Gnosis Mediation Cabal case. I've now read the talk page discussion, and looked at the article history, so the informal mediation will start soon on the article talk page. Apologies for the delay. PhilKnight (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Langdell, you wrote on my talk page:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Langdell (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if you remove templates from your page they are recorded in the page's history. Langdell (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate your keeping this sort of trolling off my talk page. Vandalism is a serious accusation; and, if you think I am guilty of it, you should take your complaint here [3]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Langdell, please be careful what you are calling vandalism. Good faith edits are never vandalism. And people can blank anything from their own talkpages that they wish. Please read WP:BLANKING and What vandalism is not, thanks. --Elonka 15:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I request the entire discussion about bigotry is discontinued, because it doesn't appear to be conducive to resolving the disagreement? PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You are in violation of WP3RR. Please discuss the issues on the Gnosis article talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[4] made on October 21 2008 to Gnosis

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. I'm not quite sure if you have 4R in 24h. I rather suspect you might, but you definitely have 4R in not-much-more than; you've been blocked for this article just recently; you've made no contribution to the talk page; and you've used "reverting vandalism" as an edit summary against edits which were clearly not vandalism William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you silently removed you previous block notice [5], which loses you points too William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just to be fair, he is allowed to remove block notices, per WP:BLANKING. It's just unblock notices that we really need to be careful about. --Elonka 18:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

01:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

15:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]