User talk:Sylvain1972

Dear Sylvain,

I noticed that Jhana was merged with Dhyana. Now there is only Dhyana but no Jhana. Dhyana is a sanskrit term used mainly by Mahayana Tradition. Jhana is a pali term used by Theraveda School. There is mostly information based on the Theraveda school because Mahayana School usually doesn't use the Pali term Jhana. Likewise, you will see mostly Mahayana meditation under Dhyana, because Theraveda School doesn't use that term. Why not keep them separate to avoid confusion. The techniques used by two schools are different. --Simpliciti (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was underway for a number of months and consensus had formed to move it. You are correct that dhyāna is a Sanskrit word and jhāna is the Pali variant, but it is the same word. And it is not as simple a matter as saying there are two approaches, Theravada and Mahayana, and the two variants line up neatly with the two approaches. The understanding of dhyāna/jhāna that is found in earlier Buddhism is common to all Buddhism. All of the śrāvaka schools have teachings on dhyāna that more or less match those found in the Theravada system, and many of the śrāvaka schools were Sanskritic, ie they used Sanskrit as their canonical language, so they used the variant dhyāna rather than jhāna. All of Tibetan Buddhism inherited these teachings through the works of Vasubhandu and they very much still study them. It makes no sense to have a duplicate article for dhyāna that is 75% the same material as the article under jhāna. It will take a little bit more refinement to keep everything clear, but it makes sense to consolidate the material in one place with appropriate sections. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylvain1972, thanks for inviting me to contribute to these subjects. I would be delighted to do so although my knowledge is very superficial, however I have a great respect and debt to the Tibetan traditions and masters so anything I can contribute I certainly will. Of particular interest to me would be some pages on Trijang Rinpoche, Zong Rinpoche, Je Phabonkhapa etc because these figures are widely discussed but in fact there is little information available about any of them. I am not an expert myself but perhaps some experts can be drawn out of the woodwork? I can put together very basic sketches however. On a general note you may have concerns that I am partisan to one particular view, and of course I do have my own views, however one of the things I really appreciate about Wiki is that it enables a broad range of different views to be presented as long as they are well founded, this I very much support, even if they contradict my views. In the meantime if you would like me to review or contribute to any ongoing articles please let me know, I would be delighted to contribute.(Robertect 11:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi, I have just seen that you have mentioned the Tibetan Buddhism project on my talk page. Thanks for the invite! However, I do not know how much I can add. I follow the same tradition as Robert and as he has been involved longer (I think) he can probably offer more than me. It is also not clear as to how many people would consider the NKT to be 'Tibetan'. However, I can give my perspective of living in an NKT Dharma Centre in England and of being a Dorje Shugden practioner if that would be helpful. All the best. Patrick --Patrick K 09:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im also a (beggining) tibetan buddhist practitioner, but wonder about the wisdom of having a separate portal. I think buddhists are allready quite a small minority here on wiki, and maintaining (general) buddhist portal, project and articles (especially of topics and terms shared with other more numerous religions, like hindu) seems complicaded enough; creating specific portals for subdivisions maybe is not such a great idea? --Aryah 01:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you have edited other Tibetan Buddhism topics. I spent some time on this article, but it still remains a wretched piece of unencyclopedic writing. If you get the chance, can you look at it? I've left some comments on the talk page.
Thanks,
--A. B. 18:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have my total support -- you might add Ngor to your list as well -- it appears very similar. I just put a ton of tags on it. --A. B. 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I _think_ your last reply to MrDemeanour got in between his/her comment and signature, so I moved it back, based on edit history. If this is _not_ the case then I do apologize, but it was a little confusing otherwise. Regards, Zero sharp 16:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylvain,

Thanks for removing the NPOV and clean-up tags on Burj al-Arab. As you noted, a fair bit of work has been done on it. While the subject has no special importance to me, the low standard of writing on that article was really getting on my nerves. I'm happy that you feel it's now at a readable standard.

I removed the "Criticism" section in accordance with a discussion on Talk:Burj al-Arab with H005. I feel that the currently-listed criticisms are a bit self-serving. I understand your reasons for reinstating the section, and would love to hear more discussion of the issue on the article's talk page.

(talk to) Caroline Sanford 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much -- the article is in a lot better shape since I last looked in, mostly thanks to your edits. Zero sharp 10:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sylvain1972,

Forgive me for having to revert a couple of your changes to the Presidents Day article. I left you a note on the discussion page with an explanation; I think you were basing your edits on false information on the discussion page. Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts.

--Factman 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylvain,

I'm just getting used to the idea of making alterations to wikipedia articles.

After reading your entry on Namgyal Rinpoche, I wondered if it was based on your having met the man, or whether you put it together from what you'd read.

I studied with him for many years and feel there is a glaring omission, but wouldn't want to offend you by re-writing the article.

I note you don't have an email link on your user page, so I'll just have to check in here sometime to see if you've posted a reply... unless you can email me (do I have an email link on my page?)

Alansw

Alansw, I think you should go ahead and edit in whatever you feel is appropriate. I don't know anything particularly about the topic, I just put in what I could piece together.Sylvain1972 14:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

hi -- this article is a mess, and I think the numbers are completely off. But please, please, don't add countries for which we don't have numbers! Originally the article listed every country in the world, and most of them didn't have any data. It was a disaster. I'd like to do through soon and redo the whole article, but I really don't think adding new countries at this point adds anything to it. thanks! bikeable (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your argument, but it is also helpful as a list of articles regardless of the numbers, so I think it adds that.Sylvain1972 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But the articles you added don't exist! of course, once they do, we should add them, but having a redlink to an article on every country doesn't add to the article. bikeable (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is helpful to see what exists now and what doesn't. I plan to start the two articles I added shortly - that's why I added them.Sylvain1972 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi I am fascinated in Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism and have adde dmany new articles on buddhist monasteries such as Ramoche Temple and Shalu Monastery. Would it be possible to merge your project into WikiProject Tibet -after all much of the traditional culture and biographies etc are Tibetan buddhism anyway, I feel it could create abetter coordination . PLease see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. If it became WikiiPorject Tibet the Tibetan Buddhism would be an intergral part of it of course . What do you think? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested to know that I have added a gallery of Dalai Lamas !! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 18:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but I think it is best to avoid merging the topics. They are distinct, after all, and it can't hurt to have two. However, any help you'd like to offer to the Tibetan Buddhist project is appreciated, of course.Sylvain1972 13:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The decision by Wikiporject China was to create a project WikiProject Tibet. However I too agree with you that there is a disinction between Tibetan tradition/religion and Chinese takeover. Your project is now a part of WikiProject Tibet but I am keeping all of the categories for Tibetan Buddhism (I also created some new ones) which are now part fo Buddhism and Tibet. For example please see Talk:Ramoche Temple. THis article geographically is part of China so goes in that category. However spiritually it is part of Tibetan Buddhism project so that tag puts it in not only the Tibetan Buddhst category but also in Tibet articles. E.g for the Dalai Lama the tag clearly cannot be Chinese! but has a Tibetan Buddhism tag which automatically places it also in the Tibet category but not CHina. I feel this is the best way to do it. I also improved the Tibetan Buddhism template and have begun adding it to articles which I couldn't beleive were not tagged like the Panchen Lama! THis way your project is working with Tibet whilst avoiding the CHinese tagging whilst focusing on solely Buddhism articles. For example Lhasa has two tags yet being under the same project - this is to show that the Tibetan buddhism project is still very much in operation but is part of the wider Tibetan framework. It wasn't my decision to merge them but if you understand they haven't really been merged just organized more strongly. YOu'll beginning to see a big improvmeent in you rproject by my tagging system and I'll continue creating new Tibetan-Buddhist articles. I hope you see the idea. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't begin to stress how important I beleive this is and like you I agree that Tibetan Buddhism is an important and highly interesting subject. PLease add to the Tibetan Buddhism section of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet and state the goals etc articles needing improvement etc. ALso I beleive your Portal:Tibetan Buddhism is great!!! and should be linkeed on every Tibetan buddhist article in the template showing it simportance ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 20:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't beleive the article which haven't been organized. Why has Drepung Monastery and Je Tsongkhapa not been tagged!!!!! They now have the Tibetan Buddhism tag. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 20:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you respond to me I know you are there!! Are you as interested in Tibetan Buddhism as I am? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 21:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...is hotly debated among historians so it's hard to give you a straight answer. However, by 1931 Canada was declared "equal" to Britain within the Commonwealth. Yet because the Canadian founding fathers had forgotten to give themselves a process to amend the constitution, that power technically stayed with Britain until 1982. Does that work? Kevlar67 20:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main goods are at Constitutional history of Canada. Cheers. Kevlar67 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that's helpful.Sylvain1972 13:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did read Dartmouth University but accidentally linked that article, which I had in another tab. Dartmouth College describes the school as "a private, coeducational university". Sorry if that was confusing; I should've worded my edit summary better. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 22:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "rvv" means "revert, vandalism". Please don't use this in reference to content disputes.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 03:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. After the umpteenth time of explaining my edits to the anonymous user, who made no edit summaries, I consider it vandalism. The official policy is ambiguous as to whether or not it qualifies. Sylvain1972 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hallo Sylvain. I do agree with you about "rigpa" not being the correct translation of "bodhicitta". In the article (largely created by myself) on the "Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra" ("All-Creating King"). I originally used the terms "bodhicitta" or Awakened Mind or Mind of Perfect Purity (in conformity with the text itself). But someone with a zest for the "rigpa" word came along and changed it! It was a bit irritating, since the main concept explored by this tantra is that of bodhicitta (rather than rigpa) in the sense of the eternally Awake and uncreated Mind of Buddha (Samantabhadra). Anyway, thanks for your valuable input. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 20:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:IntothePurpleValley.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Shambhala flag.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the list of tallest churches, you repeatedly used the abbreviation "TK." What does that mean? We need to come up with a definition of size. An example is [1] which relates to [2] which says of the Salt Lake Temple "Inside, the temple covers 253,015 square feet." If we were comparing houses, we would state the interior floor space. The question then is whether to include just the main worship space, or any chapels, or the kitchen, offices, hallways, etc. There should be a source for all figures and they should be in consistent and defined usage. Also we have to state whether a parish hall or educational wing is included. Edison 21:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just copyedit shorthand for "To Come." I agree it would be nice to establish conventions, but it won't be easy to get the data I don't think. Sylvain1972 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:TR-HHDL-K.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the result of the AfD was keep, but it was a procedural keep - in other words, the merits of this specific article were never discussed - so the prod was justified. However, if you plan to move the article and hopefully expand it, I'll hold off on nominating it for deletion.--DLand^TALK 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Caps.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, there are two individuals known as Surya Das. I happen to know the one who was given his name by Neem Karoli Baba. He is not the same individual who is the subject of this article; in fact, the one given the name by NKB is not a Buddhist but a Hindu and a kirtan walla. GlassFET 16:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. It would be nice to know how he ended up with a Hindi name.Sylvain1972 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs).

Yes, I've always been curious about that too. GlassFET 17:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd. I'm glad you found that reference. Now I know they both got their name from Neem Karoli Baba. I believe he gave several people the name Hari Das as well. They are still not the same person, though. I've never met Lama Surya Das, but his pictures look nothing like the Surya Das I know. I asked him about it once: he just shrugged. GlassFET 19:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too though church was out of place in shambhala buddhism history.

Egomzez 00:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:IntothePurpleValley.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Traleg_Rinpoche.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say I appreciate your watchfulness and detail on the Shambhala Buddhism page and others. Great working with you here. Someone just dropped some questionable stuff on Sakya, but I'm not exactly sure what to do about it. Not my expertese. If you have some time, would appreciate your help there. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I assume you're talking about Geir Smith. Frankly, he's a nightmare. He was banned for at least a year because he posts nonsense and then mounts vitriolic personal attacks on anyone who challenges him. I'm sorry to see that he is back. I would suggest trying to get a moderator involved as soon as possible. Sylvain1972 19:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the history. So far he took my requests seriously and paired back his edits to the history of buddhism in russia page to be something quite reasonable and more neutral. He does seem to have some unpopular views on the kalachakra, I'm just hoping he can keep an eye on neutrality in the midst of that... Hate to end up in a spat though... - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup, Mr. Smith was just banned indefinitely for some other changes. [3]. I wasn't involved in that dispute at all but it's an interesting read. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, thanks. All for the best, as he is clearly deranged. Sylvain1972 17:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have any quotations with associated citations to improve the quality of the Taranatha article it would be most appreciated.
Blessings in the Mindstream
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Trilogy of Dispelling Darkness, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Trilogy_of_Dispelling_Darkness. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:KTGR.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:KTGR.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylvain -

First, I want to thank you for identifying a statement in the kilesa article as referring to a Hindu text. (The editor who I believe originated the statement in question, while appearing to be extremely earnest and intelligent, also tends to be highly syncretic and somewhat obfuscating without providing clarity regarding sources.) If this typifies your activities on WP, let me applaud your efforts and please know I appreciate your sharing your impressive knowledge.

If I may, I also have a question about another edit you made today. I see you recently added the following line to the intro of Taṇhā.

The Sanskrit term rāga, which has a similar meaning, is sometimes used synonymously with tṛṣṇā.

I guess I'm curious about this statement for a couple of reasons (some trivial, one perhaps not):

1. Was it purposeful that you did not mention that rāga was a Pali term as well? For instance, if you look at the MWD[4] and the PED[5] entries for rāga (often translated as "passion" or "lust"), they appear to refer to the same word.
2. Within Buddhism, I've come across rāga in tandem with a number of terms (e.g., chanda, dosa and moha). While I could intuitively understand a relationship between rāga and taṇhā, I'm not familiar with their being "used synonymously" in a particularly significant way. So I was wondering if you could provide a source for this observation -- whether a reliable secondary source or a couple of discourses, etc.
3. Lastly, I'm wondering if this observation is significant enough to include in kilesa's intro. Might it be better placed in the "Meaning" subsection or perhaps as foot note appended to the word "Sanskrit" in the intro, etc. Could you help me appreciate the basis for your placement?

If you're inclined to clarify, I'd appreciate it. I wish you well, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just came across raga in the "Six Defilements of Vasubandhu" section of the Kilesa article and then was curious about the relationship of the term to tanha because it seemed to have the same meaning in that context. I have to admit that I don't know much about it, so please make any and all edits that you feel are appropriate. I just thought it would useful to mention. Sylvain1972 14:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sylvain - thanks for the quick and very helpful response. I'll give it some thought and perhaps will come up with some way to make the statement more meaningful. If not, I'll move it to the talk page for someone else (or, of course, yourself) to perhaps consider re-incorporating and/or expanding. Please let me know if you have any further ideas on this. I wish you the best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylvain - just to follow-up, after searching a few different discourses (primarily based on PED entries) I decided that the most compelling association b/w tanha & raga had to do with their being personifications of Death's (Mara's) daughters in both the Samyutta Nikaya and the Suttanipata. So I moved the reference to raga to the end of the "Drawbacks and escape" section and modified the text to read as follows:

Relatedly, in the Pali Canon, taṇhā is at times personified as one of Death's three daughters (Māra-dhītā), along with aversion (arati) and passion (rāga).^[1] Thus, for instance, in the Samyutta Nikaya's Māra-saṃyutta, the Buddha's victory over Death is symbolically complete after Death's three daughters fail to entice the Buddha:

They had come to him glittering with beauty —

Taṇhā, Arati, and Rāga —

But the Teacher swept them away right there

As the wind, a fallen cotton tuft.^[2]

I hope you find this modification acceptable and perhaps even beneficial, desirable. Thanks again for your help. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sylvain, just wanted to give you kudos on being on top of the attempts (yet again) to foist minority opinion on the Karmapa controversy page. I'm pretty sure we can assume Oestrik is the same person who's been doing it all along. I wonder when the guy'll give up? I'm pretty sure it's this guy http://www.youtube.com/user/daveyork0 doing all this stuff, but I'm not exactly certain. Changchub (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wouldn't even call it a minority opinion. I think his approach more represents the view that events cannot be talked about candidly and honestly, and instead must get dressed up or get a spin job. And of course not only is that contrary to wikipedia, it is just plain obnoxious and detrimental to the dharma. Sylvain1972 13:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Mile-High Tower, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mile-High Tower. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does your name not link and no (talk) link come up for your sigs? It makes it difficult to interact w/ you. Gwynand (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know. I use four ~. Sylvain1972 14:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK. I was just curious if you weren't officially signing. You must have changed your sig under special preferences at some time in the past, that's the only way to explain why your sig is not the normal output. Gwynand (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you care, I think I figured it out. On the top of your screen, click "my preferences". On the first tab, uncheck the box for raw signature. This is what's causing no link. The change is up to you, but it would make it easier for people to interact with you, as their is a direct link to your talk page when you sign. Gwynand 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See, I just did it in my last post, but then unchecked raw signature, now here is my sig -- Gwynand (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Mdm,

We are acting on behalf of Drukpa Publications and the organisations of His Holiness Gyalwang Drukpa. We don't understand why you are taking out our editing. We have historical facts that are translated directly from Tibetan and also new materials for the lineage. We would appreciate you stop editing what we have edited because you have undone correct facts for the Drukpa Lineage.

Your kind support by not vandalizing our editing would be most appreciated.

Sincerely, Jigme Tobden Drukpa Publications, Information Centre

The facts that you have removed from the article are accurate and are supported by legitimate sources that are cited as such. It is not proper to remove them. Please familiarize yourself with the policies of Wikipedia. Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line 303: Line 303:

I see. Well, at least he is communicating with me here now, it seems. Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, at least he is communicating with me here now, it seems. Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-

Dear Sir/Mdm,

I have read the COI and note the "Conflict of Interests" - but we need to know who is Sylvain1972 to represent the Drukpa Lineage to put the historical facts on the Wikipedia. Is he a scholar of Tibetan Buddhism? We will get Mr. Gene Smith, Mr. Lobsang Thargay, the relevent personnels in charge of religious affairs departments in Bhutan, Ladakh and India to write to Sylvain1972, if this helps to resolve the conflict of interest.

As far as we are concerned, history of the Drukpa Lineage cannot be just from English books that are available in the bookstores, because some of them were biased information. We have in our hands translated information, provided by scholars in Ladakh, Tibet and Bhutan, which can be verified by Mr. Gene Smith. But since these materials have yet been published in English, are you saying that these are not valid facts?

Tibetan Buddhist facts should be provided by authorised people who belong to the lineage that can provide a open, unbiaised and fair picture of the Drukpa Lineage.

There are the facts that are quoted wrongly by Sylvain1972 and we know they are wrong and that should not be misleading the public.

(1) We are known as Dongyu Palden Drukpa (2) The Fourth Gyalwang Drukpa Kunkhyen Pema Karpo left a prediction letter in Tibetan that says that he would have two reincarnations that returned to this world (3) Ling Repa is not a disciple of Tsangpa Gyare Yeshe Dorje. He is the ROOT GURU of Tsangpa Gyare Yeshe Dorje, and Ling Repa's guru is Phagmo Drupa. (4) Drukpa Kagyu Heritage Projects are not representative of the Drukpa Lineage (5) Jamgon Kongtrul Rinpoche's poem on the 4 greater and 8 lesser schools are not representing the full picture. (6) The Drukpa Lineage belongs one of the the Sarma schools of Tibetan Buddhism, which is not wrong. The Nyingma is known as the old school and all others are under the new school which is called Sarma (7) Great lineages of the three Victorious Ones (Gyalwa Namsum) and the Three Divine Madmen are not mentioned. We have all these already translated into English.

We just want to know in this case, who is conflicting the interest of the Drukpa Lineage.

Thank you.

Yours, Jigme Tobden

unsigned comment added by JigmeTobden (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the 3RR noticeboard on my watchlist and noticed your recent report. When reporting, you need to follow the specific rules of the page in order for the report to be properly evaluated. In your case, you need to provide at least 4 diffs for the reverts breaking the 3RR rule, and then a diff showing that you warned the violating editor. Ask me if you need help with this. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 17:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I perhaps will need help. I was concerned that if I waited for his 3RR I might get into 3RR trouble myself in the process. Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. First, it is usually required that you first warn the user on their talk page that either they are getting close to violating 3RR, or already have done so. If they proceed to violate again, that's when it is appropriate to report the incident. You could put this warning on now, read WP:WARN for some help and templates you can use. Furthermore, you are close to violating 3RR yourself. I've reviewed the other editor's edits, and while his edits don't seem good, they aren't exactly vandalism and technically the two of you are just in a content dispute. Try further discussing it on that article's talk page. If the other editor is acting improper, bring it up on their talk page with whatever policy they might be violating. Remember to be civil and assume good faith. If non of this works, then would be the time to report any incidents to the community. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, at least he is communicating with me here now, it seems. Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is translated from Tibetan. Phajo Druggon Shigpo was not a disciple of Tsangpa Gyare.

Just before he passed away, Tsangpa Gyare told his nephew and Regent, Onre Darma Sengye (1177 - 1237), "A Khampa son from Kham is coming. But he won't meet me. You look after him. Send him to the southern valley that has been visited and blessed by Orgyen Padma Jungne. He will be of great service to the Buddha Dharma."

Tharpa Gyaltsen was born at Babchu Tashigang in Kham, eastern Tibet, in 1184, amidst many miraculous signs. Like Tsangpa Gyare, he is also said to be a descendant of the Gya (Chinese) clan. He began his studies under a Nyingma master at the age of 7. At the age of 12, he was ordained by a renowned master named Tharpalingpa and received instructions on Dzogchen Nyingthig. Then he did prolonged meditation at Lingkar Drak, a place blessed by Guru Padmasambhava.

One day he learnt of the spiritual reputation of Tsangpa Gyare from some traders of Jang Taklung. Merely hearing the name of Tsangpa Gyare generated a deep sense of devotion in him and tears came to his eyes. Moved with great devotion, he made up his mind to go to Ralung to see Tsangpa Gyare. He sought his teacher's permission to go on a pilgrimage to Lhasa and Samye. After receiving the remaining instructions from his teacher, he set off on his journey. It took him almost a year to reach the U-Tsang region of Tibet.

While in Samye, he heard the news of Tsangpa Gyare's passing away from two ascetics and he fainted. When he regained his senses, he heard about Onre Darma Sengye, the Regent of Tsangpa Gyare at Ralung, whose spiritual attainment was equal to that of Tsangpa Gyare. At the age of 33, Tharpa Gyaltsen arrived at Ralung. As instructed by Tsangpa Gyare, Onre Darma Sengye took him as his disciple and transmitted the teachings of the Drukpa tradition. After receiving the teachings for about a year, Tharpa Gyaltsen meditated at Jekar and Longdol for three years. He then went back to his master Onre Darma Sengye and related his experiences; after receiving the remaining teachings and empowerments, he again did extensive meditation and realized Mahamudra. Onre Darma Sengye was impressed by his realization and gave him the name Phajo Druggom Zhigpo.

At the appropriate time, Onre Darma Senye told Phajo about Tsangpa Gyare's prophecy and gave him instructions about his activities in Bhutan. In 1224, at the age of 40, Phajo left for Bhutan to carry out the prophecy of Tsangpa Gyare.

At the time of Phajo’s arrival at Lingzhi, in Bhutan, a cow belonging to a local rich man named Matong Gyi, had given birth to a calf with the head of a donkey and a snake as the tail. He approached Phajo for help. Phajo subjugated the evil spirit and it became a normal calf. All the nomads of Lingzhi joined together and offered Jagoe Dzong and all the surrounding land to Phajo.

Then Phajo meditated at Paro Taktsang for a month. In a vision during the meditation, Guru Padmasambhava instructed him to travel throughout the country and meditate at twelve places:

1) Four Dzongs (fortresses) - Taktsang Sengye Samdrub Dzong, Tago Choying Dzong, Lingzhi Jagoe Dzong and Yangtse Thubo Dzong; 2) Four Draks (rocks) - Gom Drak, Thukje Drak, Tsechu Drak and Dechen Drak 3) Four Phugs (caves) - Tsedong Phug, Gawa Phug, Langthang Phug and Sengye Phug.

While staying at Darkar Latse, Phajo met Achog and took her as his consort. A son was born and given the name Dampa. When Phajo went to Wang Sinmo, he met Sonam Paldron, a girl with the signs of a Dakini, at Chagzam Bridge. Since meeting her had been prophesied to Phajo in a vision, he took her also as his consort. The bridge came to be known as Lungten Zampa, or the ‘Bridge of the Prophecy’. Phajo gave her all the instructions and empowerments of the Drukpa tradition. Then they went to meditate at the cave Dodena, where Tago monastery stands today. In a vision during the meditation, Hayagriva instructed Phajo to continue his line through children to spread the traditions of the Drukpa lineage. After nine months Sonam Paldron gave birth to a daughter.

Leaving his consort and daughter at Dodena, Phajo went to meditate at all the places prophesied. One day, while he was at the Dechen Drak, the string of his rosary broke and the beads scattered in all directions. This was an omen that his teachings would spread all over the country in the future.

Prior to the arrival of Phajo Druggom, Nyoe Gyalwa Lhanangpa, a disciple of Kyobpa Jigten Sumgon (1143 - 1217), the founder of the Drikung Kagyud, had great influence and controlled a large part of western Bhutan. However, the growing reputation of Phajo began to threaten Lhanangpa's influence and power.

Sonam Paldron gave birth to seven sons. One day, Phajo took all seven sons to a bridge and, invoking the deities to decide which of his sons were demons and which would preserve his lineage, he threw all of them into the river. Three sons drowned and four remained unharmed. This story spread across the country and Lhanangpa became envious and hostile. Lhanangpa sent a letter to Phajo saying, "You cannot stay in this country without my permission. You should either look after the monastery of Jathel Dzong or serve as a stable-keeper. Else you will lose your life".

Phajo dismissed the threat and wrote back saying that he had been sent by Onre Darma Sengye in accordance with the prophesy of Tsangpa Gyare, to spread the teachings of the Drukpa lineage. Lhanangpa then hatched plans to kill Phajo, but failed in every attempt. Following these events the people of Paro and other areas began to lose faith in Lhanangpa's leadership and his influence waned. The local leaders who had been supporters of Lhanangpa pledged their allegiance to Phajo. Lhanangpa fled to Bemed in Gitagom valley, where he built the Tokha Dzong fortress. The influence of the Drigung Kagyud dwindled gradually. However, their antagonism towards the Drukpas lasted until the time of Shabdrung in the seventeenth century.

Phajo began to spread the teachings of the Drukpa lineage systematically. He firmly established the Drukpa lineage teachings as the main school in western Bhutan and exerted considerable political and spiritual influence in the rest of the country. He passed on the teachings to his sons and sent them to different areas. They ruled according to the principles of the Dharma. In 1251, at the age of 68, Phajo passed away at Tago. JigmeTobden (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to have your contact email. Some officers would like to contact with you regarding histories and facts by email exchange, so that it doesn't end up being a heated and open discussion. Secretaries and monasteries of His Holiness Gyalwang Drukpa as well as some other eminent Rinpoches in Bhutan and Ladakh would like to be in touch with you. We have referred this to them. Jigme Tobden JigmeTobden (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to most of your changes. I have let them stand in my most recent edits. However, the idea that the Drukpa school is not a Kagyu school is not widely accepted at the very least. It is certainly not the conventional wisdom. I will not allow you to expunge that information from the article, that is not what wikipedia is for. I am sure that His Holiness and the eminent Rinpoches in Bhutan and Ladakh have more important things to worry about. I am in full agreement that it is not necessary to have a heated discussion, and I have no desire to have one, but I must insist that we have an open discussion. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, then we will get each of them to register and start quoting "3rd Party" sources, as you all have mentioned. You should really find out under what circumstances these books were written and translated. Fairness should be there to all the different lineages, as each has its own beauty. This exchange has brought great enlightening experiences that we will definitely share with our counterparts in Ladakh, Bhutan, Tibet and other parts of India. You will see more of us, as well as our team of scholars. Kindly put correct facts. JigmeTobden (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to hear your side of the story, actually. Particularly if you are correct and many Drukpa lamas say that the Drukpa school is not Kagyu. But wikipedia is governed by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, so all legitimate viewpoints must be represented, and most scholars consider the Drukpa school Kagyu. Indeed, many prominent Drukpa lamas consider it Kagyu, such as His Eminence the Eighth Dorzong Rinpoche, Choegyal Rinpoche, Tsoknyi Rinpoche, and many others. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't agree for you to say that "...His Holiness and the eminent Rinpoches in Bhutan and Ladakh have more important things to worry about" - If Wikipedia misrepresents facts of the Drukpa Lineage, without people and scholars to defend and correct the facts, then everyone will be quoting the wrong facts and wrong facts will become historical facts. As you said, "the idea that the Drukpa school is not a Kagyu school is not widely accepted at the very least" - we just wonder are "widely accepted" facts the truths or something else. Sometimes, majority's agreement or acceptance of something may not be the truth in totality. For example, sources that you have quoted are mainly from one particular school, how about those of Drikung, how about those of Nyingma? How about those from Bhutan? This is what we meant by lopsided. Are you saying that if we put a third reference to the fact that the lineage is known as Drukpa Lineage, or rather Drukpa "Kar"gyud - because being the white lineage, that you will agree for us to take it down what we feel is a misguided fact, that the 800-year-old lineage and its yogis never had the chance to defend. We first felt Wikipedia was a great source of correctly represented information, but you said, "I will not allow you to expunge that information from the article, that is not what wikipedia is for" - if a misquote or a misrepresentation is widely accepted, is it considered as a truth? In fact, we wanted to tell you that the lineage was historically known as "Drukpa Kargyud" - I guess you must know the difference between Kagyud and Kargyud, but many don't. This issue will definitely be addressed to all the masters. A consistency in this obviously will help to protect the legacy of the Dragon lineage and to ensure that it shall exist beyond a millennium, and not disappearing due to "widely accepted" reasons. JigmeTobden (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, many prominent Drukpa lamas consider themselves Kagyu, including the ones I mentioned. I didn't realize there were some who didn't. If that is the case you should put that in the article, but you can't erase the fact that many Drukpa lamas consider themselves Kagyu. I am not trying to attack anyone, or say that only the majority gets to be heard. But the majority view cannot be erased completely. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I was aware, the majority view has been to consider Drukpa a Kagyu lineage. After all, although it was a matter of courtesy, the 16th Karmapa did put Khyenzig Drugchen Rinpoche second on his list of Heads of the Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. If there were ever a time for the Drukpa school to say "No thank you, we're not actually Kagyu," it seems like that would have been it. As far as I have understood, Phagmo Drupa who was a disciple of Gampopa's, was the teacher of Lingchen Repa Pema Dorje, who was then the teacher of Tsangpa Gyare, the 1st Gyalwang Drukpa. This appears to be a fairly direct descendancy, and although I know this doesn't make the Drukpa lineage Kagyu of necessity (after all Tsongkhapa was taught by the 1st Karmapa Dusum Khyenpa and we don't call Gelug's Kagyu) however, I do agree with Sylvain that historical sources have all seemed to consider it a Kagyu lineage as well as title it thusly. If JigmeTobden can refer me to sources that disagree I would be most interested. At any rate, Sylvain, I have this page on watch now. Changchub (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changchub - What you wrote above re the 1st Karmapa [1110 - 1193] & Je Tsongkhapa seems unlikely [1357 - 1419] by more than 200 years. Tsongkhapa of course received many Kagyu teachings though I think not principally from the Kama Kagyu branch of the tradition. Chris Fynn (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris - how right you are. That was a complete mental mixup, the exact mechanism of which I cannot begin to guess. It was the 4h Karmapa, Rolpe Dorje who conferred upon Je Tsongkhapa his lay ordination at a young age. --Changchub (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you are the editor behind wikiproject Tibet. Given the now more prominent place of Tibet in the news, I'm concerned that key Tibet-related articles don't provide the quality that they should. I would like to spear-head an article improvement drive or collaboration of some sort for WikiProject Tibet to improve the most important articles fairly quickly. Would you be interested in helping start such a drive? --Gimme danger (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually started a Tibetan Buddhism wikiproject - it went kind of dormant and then was morphed into a more general one by others. I'm willing to help with that area, however. Cheers, Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've been following [the discussion]; I don't really know if I have anything to add but once I've waded through the existing commentary a little more thoroughly I'll see if I have anything to say. Thanks for thinking of me though. Zero sharp (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvain1972, thank you very much for the invitation. I have qualitatively improved the Yidam article and have read earlier versions of the Ishta-devata article. Thankyou for drawing my awareness to the current discussion.
Blessings
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvain1972, Thanks for drawing my attention to this - I've added my comments the Ishta-Deva (Buddhism) Talk page. BTW Yidam is not the Tibetan translation of Ishta-devata. Chris Fynn (talk) 07:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sylvain1972 ,If you have time and are willing to share your point of view. Can you give your comment arguments about the current discussion in the bates method article.

Paragraph :

• 22 RFC Nr : 1 change of title Bates method into Bates method / Natural Vision improvement

• 23 RFC No : 2 Removal of sourced quotes

( See also par 24 : Some objective factual information of the past and now and the discussion with Ronz on my talkpage )Seeyou (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Great eastern sun.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to get into the interpretation which likens an arahant to a fire that has gone out, then could you also include the context, that is, in the Buddha's time an extinguished fire was not understood to be annihilated, but instead to be undefinable and unbound. The first part, non-annihilation, is key. Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not getting into interpretations, I just added an etymology of the word--an important section that was lacking. I agree that your explication is helpful, and I encourage you to add it to the appropriate section.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick word of thanks for your support with the Bareau material. Some people seem to resort to any tactics to suppress material they don't like.-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that your last edit didn't really add any pagenumbers, but you did add a quote without pagenumbers. I have removed that one again. Thanks however for properly inserting the quotes. bye Greetings, Sacca 19:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Sylvain, Your quote for Petit left out a very important aspect, namely that Petit mentions that the Mahayana sutras' claim for representing the teachings of the Buddha is weak. I added this info now. I am disappointed in this. and I will have to look up your quotes in the future to see if you are using partial quotes to promote biases, and that is a shame. Bye Greetings, Sacca 02:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left that part out because it is not relevant - no one is asserting that western scholars believe that Mahayana sutras were taught by the historical buddha in his human form.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you must mean they were not taught by the Buddha right? ;-) Greetings, Sacca 18:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you know, Mahayana sutras often claim that the Buddha originally delivered them in other realms. Of course, this sort of supernaturalism is not unique to the Mahayana sutras--the Pali tradition records how the Buddha was requested to teach by Brahma himself, and later gave teachings to his own mother in Tushita heaven.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the BRD editing model. Per the talk page, the material you added does not belong in the lead section. If you want to argue for inclusion, please counter the points that have already been made. Reverting to your preferred version is not best practice. Wording like "and some argue" is not particularly appropriate (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words) and you seem to have offered an interpretation of the second source (Garfield). Frankly, these types of edits are generally frowned upon. Viriditas (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did include an argument on talk. Please continue this discussion there.

Will do, but an unattributed and admittedly ambiguous opinion doesn't belong in a lead section. You are welcome to add it to the body of the article with an argument from the author, but the lead is reserved solely for a neutral summary of the article. See also WP:LEAD. What you have added, does not go in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I'm really confused by your edits, as I don't see your signature anywhere. Are you familiar with talk page guidelines? In order for me to respond to your comments, I need to be able to see them. Well, I'm going to log off for a while, but hopefully you will have it fixed when I return. And please, read up on weasel words and lead sections. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I go, I have to ask, why are you trying to deliberately associate one of the key concepts of Buddhism with a western concept of metaphysics? That doesn't make any sense to me. And furthermore, the sources do not explicitly state what you are trying to say in the lead section. I appreciate that you have removed the weasel words, but I am very interested in your motivation. What are you trying to achieve here? In other words, what is the purpose of your edits? Please take some time to think about this as I won't be online for a while, and a thoughtful answer from yourself will go a long way towards persuading me over to your POV. Viriditas (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are there, and signed with my signature. This discussion belongs there. Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well that Buddhism does not deal with Primum movens, so the use of the ambiguous word metaphysics, makes no sense whatsoever. So, I must question your motivation. Viriditas (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to discuss this on the article talk page, where the discussion belongs and where my signed comments await response. I will not respond to further messages here.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, the reason I keep coming back here is because you have not provided an explanation for your edits on the talk page. Since there are two three editors who disagree with you forcing irrelevant material into the lead section, is there any reason I should not remove it? If there is, please explain that reason on the talk page. Your cryptic quotes and observations aren't helping make your case. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just starting another attempt to stop the NKT people from 'taking over' the Wikipedia with their continuous edit-war to promote the Shugden practice. If you agree, please leave a note at Administrators noticeboard. rudy (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello, you added a reference to some professor Davidson. Please check the language, the quoted sentence in the reference makes no sense. whats with all the (disputed)? Please make it understandable, or I will remove it. Also it overlaps with some other quotes, so after it is made readable, I might join it with another quote which carries the same meaning. Greetings, Sacca 20:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should really be discussed on the talk page. But that is the verbatim sentence, I did not change it. It makes perfect sense to me. Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at User_talk:Mitsube#Yoga.23Tibetan_Buddhism? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It reads better, and the references are a great addition. Priyanath ^talk 05:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Aparanta.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly see Talk:Aparanta 86.96.226.13 (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread on Talk:Delmonico's Restaurant#POV/synthesis text. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you accused me of bigotry in this diff: [6]. I'm not sure what you are referring to. The Buddha is not the author of the tathagatagarbha sutras, and they are later works which do not refer to teachings of the historical Buddha, as you well know. Mitsube (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation regarding your edit is underway on the talk page of that article, so it would be better to have the discussion there. As Suddha notes, calling the Buddha of the Mahayana sutras a "fictional character" is a childish provocation, as I'm sure you realize.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mahayana sutras that make historical claims are fictional. Mitsube (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mahayana sutras often claim that the Buddha gave teachings in other realms that were then later revealed to human practitioners. This is not a question of history, it is a question of whether the reader choses to believe that or not. The providence of the Mahayana sutras is clear in the article. It is not appropriate for wikipedia to adopt a POV about whether those claims are "fictional" or not - the reader can decide for him or herself. The article on Jesus says "the Gospels state that Jesus rose from the dead." It does not state, "the Gospels state that Jesus rose from the dead, an obviously fictional claim." Sylvain1972 (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to those things. I was referring to events that supposedly took place on Earth.

This material: [7] is very interesting and an excellent addition. Mitsube (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is of particular interest to me lately and I hope to develop this work further.Sylvain1972 (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever find a discussion of the relationship between the Dzogchen/Mahamudra practices of "settling the mind in its natural state" and "taking the mind as the object" with meditation as described in the suttas or Visuddhimagga or in Zen practice then please include that as well. My hunch is that the first is when the hindrances are somewhat attenuated and the second involves focusing on a nimitta of some kind but I don't know. Mitsube (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am trying to find out more about that. The second type of meditation does not so much involve nimittas--it is more the sort of vipahsyana exercise that involves contemplating questions like "what shape is your mind? what color?" etc. Or it can involve shamtha practices where the object of meditation is whatever happens to arise. That sort of thing. Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is related to "mindfulness of citta" in the Satipatthana Sutta? I actually just came across another use of the phrase "taking the mind itself as the object" in Ajahn Brahm's book: [8] This seems to me to be his description of a certain state of samadhi, so it is likely different. Mitsube (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of WP:3RR, and please address the concerns of myself and the other editor on this in the talk page without constant edit warring. Thanks, --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained every edit I have made in the talk section. You are the one that launched the edit war. I have made compromise edits in good faith.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you kept changing it back to say the restaurant no longer existed, when it does. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not. I used the past tense to describe what happened in the past, and neutral langue to describe the present.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that it existed in the past, which is incorrect. It exists in the present. I'm not going to repeat myself on this.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently read this relatively new book by Richard Shankman. His coverage of jhana in the suttas shows that it is quite different from the Visuddhimagga treatment of samadhi. In fact, jhana as described by the Buddha is one practice that has the two aspects of vipassana and samatha. You may be interested in reading it. Mitsube (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read it. That is a great book. It is interesting to see what a range of attitudes there are toward jhana among contemporary teachers.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that term from the lead of mongoose because it was already in the "Naming" section and I considered the alternative plural to be sufficiently obscure that it did not merit a separate mention in the lead. I think we should avoid cluttering the lead with rare variants unless there's a need for it--and when we have a separate section on naming, there is no such need. Ucucha 14:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sylvan! Nice to meet you. Sorry about you having to correct the article. I'm new to this whole thing so please bare with me. I plan on expanding the article as much as possible to include a lot of detail without revealing anything deemed secret or tantric in nature. Its a work in progress. I'll try to edit it a little bit each day. I'm not going to delete anything from the article that I didn't write personally. I hope that you would agree with me that the article, in its present state is a total mess. It needs to be more clear. Thanks! My email is bodhisattva.wade@gmail.com Feel free to drop me a line and I will respond promptly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhisattva.wade (talk • contribs) 15:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that sounds great.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Buddha Barnstar
		For your excellent additions of material about early Buddhist texts and the place of breath meditation in Indian Yogacara and Tibetan traditions. Mitsube (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at User_talk:Abecedare#Tibetan_Buddhism? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind checking this series of diffs? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that actually and I had a look. I didn't scrutinize it really closely but I think it was more or less OK.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK great. Here's a heads-up in case you haven't heard about it (though you probably have). On the night of April 7th there is going to be a two-hour special on PBS about Buddhism, so if you could be sure to be on wikipedia before and after that, and the next day, that would be good. There may be a lot of IP vandalism and other detrimental edits. I will ask for semi-protect for the main two articles. Mitsube (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I hadn't heard about it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [9] and [10]. Mitsube (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Sylvain1972 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great work there! Regards, Mitsube (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That article was long overdue.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice additions there. I am confused about something. For one, how could Nagasena have been influenced by Mahayana? Also in the Anguttara the Buddha says that it is only possible to dedicate to hungry ghosts: [11] (search in the page for Janussonin). Maybe there is a contradiction there. The Mahaparinibbana Sutta does have at least one other passage which seems like an interpolation. Mitsube (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good catch, thanks! I had another look at McDermott and he says that it was "another step in the direction of the Mahayana notion of transfer of merit" and that it was "influenced by the popular belief in transfer of merit so-called." Not that it was influenced by Mahayana. But as far as the access to insight page goes, the Buddha isn't talking about transfering merit to pretas, he's talking about how one can supposedly make food offerings to them which they can eat.Sylvain1972 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, the Buddha says "by means of whatever is the food of hungry shades. He lives there, he remains that, by means of whatever his friends or relatives give in dedication to him." According to the sutta in the Khuddakapatha, their food is merit. The paragraph on the devas is less clear. I suppose someone could try to interpret the two so as to be consistent. Mitsube (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the start of the AN 10.177 that you reference it says, Then Janussonin the brahman went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Master Gotama, you know that we brahmans give gifts, make offerings, [saying,] 'May this gift accrue to our dead relatives. May our dead relatives partake of this gift.' Now, Master Gotama, does that gift accrue to our dead relatives? Do our dead relatives partake of that gift?" The offerings that the brahmans make is actual physical stuff--food and so on. Which then appears in the preta realm as preta food.

Likewise, in the Khuddakapatha, it says "Thus those who feel sympathy for their dead relatives give timely donations of proper food & drink — exquisite, clean — [thinking:] "May this be for our relatives. May our relatives be happy!" And those who have gathered there, the assembled shades of the relatives, with appreciation give their blessing for the plentiful food & drink: "May our relatives live long because of whom we have gained [this gift]. We have been honored, and the donors are not without reward!" It is actual food that the pretas are offered, and actual (preta) food that they get to eat. I myself have been part of many occasions where actual food was set aside for the pretas.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Buddha often responded to questioners without accepting the assumptions behind their statements. This is what he is doing, otherwise there would be no need to state "by means of whatever is the food of hungry shades". And in the second passage [12] I think the "this" in the "May this be for our relatives" to be the act of giving itself, not the actual food. It is the act of giving to the sangha: "when this offering is given, well-placed in the Sangha ... the proper duty to relatives has been shown, great honor has been done to the dead, and monks have been given strength". This is how a Theravada monk presented it to me. Mitsube (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole sentence quoted says: Thus those who feel sympathy for their dead relatives give timely donations of proper food & drink— exquisite, clean —[thinking:] "May this be for our relatives. May our relatives be happy". The passage suggests that the pretas get actual food, not the merit of the offering. It doesn't say that the merit benefits them, it says that the food does--"in their realm there's no farming . . . they live on what is given here." It is definitely true that in the later and modern Theravada tradition transfer of merit is said to be possible, as it is in the Mahayana tradition. So I am not surprised that a monk presented it that way. But that is kind of an interpretive leap from what the text itself says--an understanding definitely influenced by the later interpretation. Which is not to say that that interpretation is incorrect, but the text itself does not present clear evidence of transfer of merit in the early suttas.Sylvain1972 (talk) 05:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the gifts are to the sangha. Maybe you think it changes the subject at that point. Mitsube (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree that the food offerings are presented to the sangha in this case. I guess you could look at it as a transfer of merit in some sense. But the benefit to the preta relatives is very immediate--they get actual preta food in their own realm on the spot, not merit that will ripen in the future.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I heard it, the merit is itself their food, not the fruit of the merit. Mitsube (talk)

I guess you could look at it that way.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the transfer of merit article, included citations and it is named under the Sanskrit. Did u know that transfer of merit was evident in Sanatana Dharma sadhana pre-dating the Buddhadharma? in regards to Xitro bad call Sylvain, the inclusion should have been preserved branded POV and citations required. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really merits a separate article, but I guess we'll see what you come up with. The Karma in Buddhism article does mention that there seems to be some influence from the sraddha of Brahminism. Regarding the Zhitro article, you are just wrong about that. You can't just throw up wild speculations. I've read enough on the topic to know that there would not be any citations to support that because you are the only one to make that connection. First of all Zhitro has little to do with sraddha, prima facie. Zhitro is mostly about how practitioners should prepare for the bardo and how they should handle it, not about how to transfer merit to deceased relatives. Second, Karma Lingpa lived in an era where there was very little contact between India and Tibet and hadn't been for a hundred years. I don't know why you think he would have been influenced by Hindu folk traditions.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a regular around the Buddhist articles. I find this edit to be a cause for concern. Note the edit comment: "I have edited out info that should not be there for the uninitiated". Not sure whether that's an isolated incident or the underlying reason for his other edits. Yworo (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. See my recent comments in response to yours on the Dzogchen article talk page.Sylvain1972 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The party named Illusionsgame has been editing controversial material from Trungpa's site, which you corrected previously. They removed the information provided by the Steinbecks regarding cocaine use. I thought this issue had decided and that it was not to be removed, because it was published by Prometheus Books, a respected publisher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWhip (talk • contribs) 13:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, and for addressing the situation.Sylvain1972 (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sylvain1972. You have new messages at Talk:List_of_Mad_Men_episodes#Synthesis.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ethan Nichtern requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Interdependence Project requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your comment. Anytime you wish to argue that our BLP policy does not require valid references to reliable sources, and anytime you wish to bring me up at the Administrative Noticeboard or the BLP noticeboard for "inventing" policy, be my guest--but do let me know. Or, of course, you can have a look at Dennis Genpo Merzel, and explain how it's OK that 14 of the 22 references are to the "Big Mind Homepage"--after you get a consensus from the BLP noticeboard or the RS noticeboard that that page (part of the subject's own website) is a reliable source. Never mind the fact, of course, that the link is dead. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the place for this discussion is the article talk page. Second, the article does have reliable sources--the subject's biographical information on his own organization's page is certainly a reliable source. The link of course was not dead at the time of the discussion.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not commenting on the article, I am commenting on what you said about me--your talk page is the right place. I take offense at being accused of bad faith or incivility, and you found yourself in bad company: one of the editors you cheerfully agreed with goes around calling people "moron" (just look on that talk page). If you think that a self-published website is a reliable source for such biographical information, you should have a look at WP:SPS, with the realization that claims made about how much shiho and inka was handed out by the subject is, of course, "unduly self-serving" in the sense of WP:SPS--it's a claim to fame. The article did in fact have reliable sources, but they were removed by the editor whom you praised for "taking the lead," Golgofrinchian. It is not a good idea to follow the lead of an editor who doesn't understand the BLP or the RS policies, or who thinks it's a good idea to remove verified information sourced to reliable publications. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have been quite uncivil. What the other editors have written is their responsibility, not mine. Of course I looked at WP:SPS. Whether or not his claim about handing out shiho and inka is "unduly self-serving" (which I disagree that it is) is hardly justification for deleting virtually the entire article, as you did. Did you delete the part about shiho and inka? No, you deleted virtually the whole article. The pertinent aspect of WP:SPS is "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" -- something you repeatedly denied.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 16:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a quick look - when I get a chance to give it a little time, hopefully in a couple of days, I'll weight in. Cheers.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering whether you had any knowledge about Mireille Helffer, the ethnomusicologist who wrote that wonderful book on Gesar and the singing styles back in the 1970s, when I first read it? I think she needs a bio. Articles are just that little better when we can ring them around with stubs on the background of people whose work we use in our sources. I've cast around, but other than editing in a note on her husband's page, can't find much. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm afraid I've not heard of her.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to ask for clarification. I know that a PROD can be removed for whatever reason, but your edit summary for removing the PROD at Celtic Buddhism was i can't find the listing for the proposed deletion, so i'm removing the template, so I was wondering if perhaps you could clarify what listing you're referring to? - SudoGhost 17:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realized after the fact that it was a procedure I hadn't seen before. But I still think it should come down - I'd say it's worth a discussion at least.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, I just wanted to ask in case there was something I wasn't aware of. Thanks. - SudoGhost 19:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should discuss the edits to Anapanasati. I thought the quote of Zaher was too long and was redundant. I thought that Zaher is paraphrased and then the same information is then quoted. Then, a paragraph that contains several obscure texts was included - a paragraph beginning with the phrase, 'Zaher continues,' or something of the like.

Perhaps we should start a section on Talk:Anapanasati. I'll wait until you're finished before making further edits, and if you post on Talk:Anapanasati then please alert me on my Talk page. Thanks, good luck. makeswell (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new thread on that talk page, thanks.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I made a new post on Talk:Anapanasati#Anapanasati in the Tibetan tradition. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this topic with me. makeswell (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to note that your edit that renamed the Great American streetcar scandal to 'Decline of streetcars in the United States' without discussion and your subsequent placement of a notability banner on the article was viewed as counter-productive of the other editors of the article who chose to comment. Your explanation that the move was justified because the previous title is a hyperbolic, fantastical, inherently POV name invented by a wikipedia editor and attested nowhere else was not felt to be of a standard that justified moving an article which has had a stable name since 2003. I don't really understand where you are coming from on this one, but your approach to this edits seemed more emotional than rational. PeterEastern (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is already under dicussion on the article page, where it belongs.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wylie.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits; joy to read. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad you liked it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Continental Baking Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give your input on the situation at the Madhyamaka page? Perfectly sourced edits are being continuously rejected. Moreover the added material seems to be correct based on the comments of Loppon Namdrol recently. GristedesEX (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at it. I can only suggest that everyone involved abandon the attempt to characterize some sort of normative understanding of Nagajuna. I don't think there is one. Follow the protocol, frame things in terms of "Garfield asserts, Walser asserts" etc.Sylvain1972 (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that 20040302 is changing direct quotes. For example here, he changed the direct quote in the footnote, changing the word eternalism to essentialism. I confirmed the original says eternalism. Calculated (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That should certainly not be happening. I see someone has corrected it. But I've made a comment on the talk page.Sylvain1972 (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please give input on this Buddhist topic "India". Thank you.

Thanks for uploading File:Lyric Benson.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sylvain. You've helped with the Tib Bsm article in the past. If you have a moment, would you like to check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tibetan_Buddhism.

I've proposed something there that would involve work for me but would improve the Tib Bsm article immensely in my opinion. It's turned out to be contentious. I have something coming up in the new year that would make it hard for me to devote the time to this then, so it is now or never. Your thoughts would be most welcome. Moonsell (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Moonsell (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sylvain1972. Could you give your opinion at Talk:Sherry Chayat#Hear-say emails? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have proof it is not legit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimon21 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs on the article talk page.Sylvain1972 (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SantaCon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rougarou, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laurentian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Turrell V. Wylie.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually is and always has been used in Turrell V. Wylie. Make a little effort next time before you delete something of value.Sylvain1972 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file in question is not used in Turrell V. Wylie if you take a look File:Turrell Wylie.png is the file that is actually in the article. Please be more careful in the future. Werieth (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. .TiredofShugden (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

here.Heicth (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see Talk:14th_Dalai_Lama — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heicth (talk • contribs) 02:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Liam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wilhelm. 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) 08:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a spare moment, can I draw your attention to the "Bon" and "RfC" sections on the Tib Bsm talk page of WP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tibetan_Buddhism). There's been a hassle going on there for over a month.

               Moonsell (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

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:Ethan Nichtern and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sylvain1972, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that most Vodka, at least in the United States, is made from corn. From http://www.greatvodka.com/vodkaMyths.htm

Q: All vodka is made from potatoes.
A: No. Very little vodka is made from potatoes. The primary ingredient used in the manufacture of vodka is corn.

Now I wouldn't call this a primary source by any means, but I think the statement that most is wheat or potatoes is debatable. I think my brother has that book. I'll have to look up what she has to say. Beakerboy (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be on the article page. But corn is definitely not the standard. Have a look here and you'll get a sense of it.Sylvain1972 (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maximilian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maximus. 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) 10:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wind Horse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian mythology. 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) 10:00, 31 October 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) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Taranatha.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kings County Democratic County Committee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Topic lacks multiple, independent and reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TM 13:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kings County Democratic County Committee is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings County Democratic County Committee until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TM 01:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gene Tierney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crown Heights. 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) 09:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COMMONNAME. In short, the article title should have been called by the Brooklyn name that the sources use, and the official name should have been secondary, just like how our article on North Korea is not titled "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." That's why people were having trouble finding sources and asserting the notability of the article. Don't blame other people for not being able to get around your errors. MSJapan (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really, you came to my talk page just to troll me after the ridiculous deletion request is defeated. Wow. The only people having trouble were people who couldn't be bothered to read the first sentence of the article. Don't blame me for your illiteracy.Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sylvain1972. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this new requested move?A ri gi bod (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sylvain1972. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sabbatino. Your recent edit to the page New York Knicks appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please stop intorducing factually incorrect content. In the Knicks' case, Perry sharing president of basketball operations' and general manager's duties was the first time in the team's history. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to template warn a user with 7K live edits? Come on, bad form. Have the decency to start an actual discussion. Strikerforce^Talk 23:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New York Knicks. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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.
Stop edit warring and discuss. If you continue to reinstate factually incorrect information you will be reported. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lozowick.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lyric Benson.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sylvain1972. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Tibetan Buddhism, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tibetan Buddhism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Tibetan Buddhism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Life, Love and Leaving, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bye Bye Baby (check to confirm | 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) 07:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Herbert L. Pratt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clinton Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Frank’s Francois Café.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norman Mailer, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Crown Heights and Flatbush.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kriyayoga and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 17#Kriyayoga until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]