User talk:Moonsell

/Sandbox

Hello, Moonsell! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

May 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tibetan Buddhism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

it implies a discontinuity between Indian and Tibetan Buddhism, the term has been discredited.<ref>(Conze, 1993</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar)

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

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

Moonsell (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Moonsell. 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]

Your question at Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar)

Because your question [1] has nothing to do with improving the article in any way, could you please remove it? It should have been placed on my talk page instead.

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

1. Once again that's not informative.

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

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

Moonsell (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you want at this point. It's not clear to me that you have read and understand my response.

My concern with your question is that it has nothing to do with improving this encyclopedia in any way, nor do I see how it improves our working together. Maybe you could explain why you asked the question and what you want to achieve by discussing the topic? --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No response? --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still no response? --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, this is playing games. You know the discussion is already at Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar). It has been ongoing for four months and is not finished.

Moonsell (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked some simple questions to clarify if you are even reading my responses and to determine what purpose these discussions serve. You are choosing not to answer? --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume then you choose not to answer. Could you please withdraw the question then? --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please move on?

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

August 2017

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

I think it might be best for you to revert your most recent contributions to Talk:Alexander Berzin (scholar)[2], and instead focus on finding a solution to this dispute. Any problems if I reverted it, and started an RfC to review the content changes? --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's something missing here and it's a worry. Actions speak louder than words, so to look at the Berzin article now… Don't trivialise this. Above all, we need you to reassure us about what we can expect from you in future.

Moonsell (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself if you're really seeing the other side and give some sign that you are. Please take the time to see what the talk is saying. If you've ever tried to do this, I must have missed it. Apparently, you've missed mine. Are you interested in addressing this yourself?

Above all, we need you to reassure us about what we can expect from you in future. Who is "us"? --Ronz (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the comment.

I'm not clear on how a proper RfC can be made around this dispute. Obviously, there is objection over the removal of the copyright-violating content. I've not paid too much attention, but I believe there were some efforts to put the biography that was copied into public domain. That doesn't mean we can simply restore it all, citing it to the webpage. At best it's a self-published, primary source. What we could use it to verify is extremely limited. I could write up an RfC around some imagined attempt to restore all the information from the biography, but I don't think there's any chance it would help. I don't see how we could do anything but repeat Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive245#Alexander_Berzin_.28scholar.29. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Moonsell. 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]

tibet

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tibetan Buddhism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chan (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) 09:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Schools of Tibetan Buddhism (May 6)

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

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Schools of Tibetan Buddhism and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Schools of Tibetan Buddhism, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

EROS ^message 09:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moonsell! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! EROS ^message 09:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan Buddhism

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

Your draft article, Draft:Schools of Tibetan Buddhism

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Moonsell. 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]

Regarding your most recent edits

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

Thanks for taking the time to post here, Hipal. I have no idea what you mean, though. Did you revert something? Best wishes.

Moonsell (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation requests

Please never just remove a citation request unless you supply a citation; WP:V requires everything to be cited. There doesn't have to be a "relevant objection" to support a citation request. Skyerise (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment on your revert of the tag, Skyerise. I'm not going to insist on my edit since it doesn't matter. You base your insistance on WP:V, though. This does matter as it could create misunderstanding for us in future.

WP:V is actually confusing. It says:

"all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations."

There are two things here: "all material" and "material challenged or likely to be challenged". They're not the same. Let's take them one by one.

1) "WP:V requires everything to be cited."

In the first paragraph of our article I count at least 21 assertions. Not one of them is sourced. Is this bad? No, because "all" and "everything" in this rule can't be taken literally. Wouldn't WP trivialize itself if it insisted on citations for things that aren't controversial, let alone things that are common knowledge among scholars?

2) The second bit narrows it down: "material challenged or likely to be challenged". This is what I meant by "relevant objection". WP looks just silly if it sources things that no one would object to.

The tag comes here in the article:

"Atiśa's chief disciple, Dromtön founded the Kadampa school of Tibetan Buddhism, one of the first Sarma schools.[citation needed]."

In the 3 years that this tag's been in place, you're the first person who's found this controversial. But what would anyone want to object to? WP:V is poorly written and our only course of action is common sense.

Best wishes.

Moonsell (talk) 04:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once someone has added a citation request, the material has been challenged. Once it has been challenged, the citation needed tag may not be removed without providing a citation, even if that requires duplicating the citation at the end of the paragraph. The act of adding a citation needed tag is, by definition, a "relevant objection". The editor who added it wants to know where to verify the stated fact. It doesn't matter whether you think the fact is obvious, another editor didn't. That would seem glaringly obvious to me. I was not the editor who added the citation request, as you imply. Any editor has the right to do so, and no editor has the right to remove the request without supplying the citation. Don't be lazy, cite it! There's an official warning for that, which I didn't use because I was trying to be kind, but since you like to Wikilawyer, I will post it after this reply. Skyerise (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tibetan Buddhism, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the elaboration, Skyerise. Please can we keep this non-aggressive.

Someone put the tag on three years ago. No one knows why. We could root around trying to find a source, but the claim in the article has never been disputed. I don't understand what way we can call that a challenge. And where would one even go about looking for a source?

The tagged assertion is a commonplace and as I said, it doesn't matter. I saw my edit as just a bit of work by a volunteer, cleaning up.

Moonsell (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]