User talk:Farang Rak Tham/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Farang Rak Tham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Farang Rak Tham! 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 excited about 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 when making edits to pages. Happy editing! JimRenge (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day 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 Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry 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 IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Dhammakaya meditation, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Sorry, but I do not believe that the Visuddhimagga states that "These steps correspond with the outline of samatha meditation as described in the Visuddhimagga, an influential Theravada manual on meditation." Please cite a reliable secondary source that supports your statement. (WP:BURDEN, WP:RS) JimRenge (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A relevant quote has already been provided, no original research was done.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Dhammakaya meditation. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

See above. More time than 16 minutes should have been given to make corrections before giving me another warning.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Dhammakaya meditation. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, JimRenge. But just out of curiosity, why didn't you remove the link? Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I see now that you have removed the link from the references, but left it in the section 'external links'. Shouldn't that be the other way around? The website supports the fact that Dhammakaya meditation is currently also called Middle Way Meditation by some teachers, so the link should be in the references. The word Middle Way Meditation has been redirecting to Dhammakaya meditation for a while now, so it would make sense to explain that redirect. I have now removed the link from external links, which could be regarded as superfluous and a form of advertising, but i propose to restore the link in the reference box.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, marketing, advertising or recruitment (WP:NOT).

If you really believe that http://mdwmeditation.org/# is an appropriate source in an encyclopedia, you might read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page (WP:DR), and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Another link has been used to replace the problematic external link.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Phramongkolthepmuni page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This has been fixed.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You removed sourced info about controversies, without mentioning this in the edit-summary. Are you related to this movement? Have you got a WP:COI? Please take care of WP:NPOV. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!, I am not aware of leaving out anything from the edit summaries. The sections concerning Wat Phra Dhammakaya and the Dhammakaya Foundation are copied from their respective wiki pages, without serving any useful purpose here in this page. Please see the talk page of the Dhammakaya Movement. This article concerns the tradition of Dhammakaya, which involves many temples, also including Wat Luang Pho Sod Dhammakayaram. There is no point in putting so much information about any specific temple within this tradition, if these temples have already been mentioned in the article, and these temples already have their own pages. My concern is that the information is redundant and repetitive, and it is difficult to update and maintain so many different pages on the Dhammakaya tradition which are all repetitive. Please understand. You will notice I have not removed these controversies in the pages mentioned. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Khemadhammo.Apologies for my harsh words; I was in a hurry this morning. I'll have another, closer look at it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!, no offense taken. I'd appreciate it if you'd reconsider the reverts you did of nine of my edits, as they were done for different reasons and involved different aspects of the contents of the Dhammakaya Movement page. I'd be surprised you'd disagree with all of them. Let us continue this discussion on Talk:Dhammakaya Movement. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I checked them; see my comments at the talkpage over there. In addition to WP:COI and WP:NPOV, also read WP:SPA. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has become obsolete due to a page merge of Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Dhammakaya Movement.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prayudh Payutto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dhammakaya. 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) 10:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Farang Rak Tham, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Wat Phra Dhammakaya has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, I will rephrase the paragraph that was too closely paraphrased. Thank you.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Farang Rak Tham/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Joe Roe (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Hello, Farang Rak Tham. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

With regard to your message on my page, I can disclose that I am not being paid for my edits whatsoever. I have a strong interest in Theravada Buddhism, and have written about a variety of subjects in Theravada Buddhism, on websites and also starting now on Wikipedia. If you need my help with any other subjects in Theravada Buddhism apart from the Dhammakaya Tradition, you can let me know, as I have already mentioned in the Wikiproject of Buddhism.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC) (Copied from my talk page to keep the discussion in one place. JimRenge (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC))

Thank you for disclosing that you are not a paid editor. However, "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, or legal – can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense." (WP:EXTERNALREL) WP:DISCLOSE states: "If you become involved in an article where you have a general COI (including a financial COI) that does not involve being paid to edit Wikipedia, place the {{connected contributor}} template at the top of affected talk pages." JimRenge (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

But I do not have anything I can "materially gain or lose" (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#cite note-4) with writing these articles here. I am currently living in Holland, and English-language Wikipedia links will not be looked at that much here. The subject matter of the tradition i write about is simply something i appreciate very much. Also, when I first started, the article was a messy mixture of bad translated primary source material and articles from Thai news papers, with little to no academic sources quoted. I have at times quoted a minority view in some parts, but I am correcting that now, as I am reading more independent sources. Please take a look at previous edits and let me know if I have done anything that requires improvement.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

What is written in the articles on this Wikipedia does not affect my life much in any way apart from my own mind's pleasure or pain. I have not been directed by any superior to write anything, not do I report to any superiors about it.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Merit (Buddhism), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CE. 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) 11:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, DPL bot. It's fixed now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:PM Abhisit participates in ceremony.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) 16:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Farang Rak Tham/Peace Revolution. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon, I have not been able to find your comment. Perhaps this is a glitch. When I click the link above I can only see the comments from seven years ago. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert is referring to this comment itself. He has not posted to the linked deletion discussion but just pointed out that it exists. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Feel free to comment on the new article.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to ping you.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If I were reviewing, I would ask the author to file a Request for Undeletion to have the deleted article temporarily undeleted in order to show that the draft is better than the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the tip! I'll see what I can do.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Robert McClenon, i have submitted an undeletion request. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have merged the deleted history with your draft. I think that will satisfy your request. There is no need to restore the article in main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Peace Revolution. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Peace Revolution 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ, would you care to expand on that decision a bit? Thanks. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Farang Rak Tham, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Peace Revolution. Thanks! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wat Phra Dhammakaya page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Farang Rak Tham. 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)

To answer your question: yes, we are looking at the same article. But what you consider "a large number" of disruptive edits is actually a matter of perspective. Please take a look at our protection policy: "Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism can be semi-protected". I agree that around the 20th of february editing was very heavy, but that has since died down considerably (hence my comment about not much activity), and has been kept in check easily. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the response anyway.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome; just as an example what is seen as semi-protection worthy: Ivao Group. Lectonar (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment of Mulian Rescues His Mother -- it seems to take longer and longer for public minded editors to find the unassessed artiticles, so I am all the more grateful.

However, "C" is low. The basic criterion for "C" at Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Assessment#Instructions is "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup."

The criteria for "B" seem more to the point: "article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards."

That said, I'd be eager to hear your suggestions for improvement!

Cheers and thanks again. ch (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

CWH, I think the contents are very complete, considering how hard it is to find English sources about the subject. However, there are still some lay out errors on it that would prevent a B assessment, in my opinion, as well as some loose pieces of information. Feel free to consult others about this though—I am not a great expert, merely starting a discussion where there should be one. You might also want to ask for feedback through Wikipedia:Peer review. I also have an article there, so maybe we can exchange opinions there.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Flow chart merit and retribution Spiro.png. 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) 18:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Farang Rak Tham. You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peace Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Comercio. 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) 09:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

	Truly illuminating idea
	Yes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to say, thanks for your comments, and thanks so much also for reverting Joshua Jonathan's edit which removed my post to the Four Noble Truths talk page. Sorry for my verboseness in the discussion of WP:RS. I value your contributions to the discussion. I'm taking a break for several days, at least a few days, or until the topic ban discussionWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for renewed topic-ban is over. Perhaps we can continue the interesting discussion after that. There is much we could discuss, and I'd also be interested to find out more about the issues with Ven. Dhammika's edits and perhaps you could talk more about that then. But I felt that it was not the time and place to discuss this on the project page when things were so heated in that debate already, which is partly why I responded to your comment rather indirectly. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the issues you raise are important, Robertinventor, but you discuss them at the wrong place, with the wrong people. It seems to me you take delight in conflict.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I just logged in for a few minutes to check the progress of the topic ban against me. I have drafted an essay on WP:RS in Buddhism which may help which I plan to submit to the Buddhism project for comment. Meanwhile you may find it interesting to read: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Religious sources. There is no need for me to comment on the wikipedia guidelines themselves as this was settled there long ago. Indeed Shravasti Dhammika's own books would be excellent secondary sources on Buddhism for the project. I will use his books as an example along with Walpola Rahula and the Dalai Lama in my essay. But not just now. I need to take a wikibreak of a few days to calm down first. I do not take a delight in conflict. But this discussion brings back very painful memories from a time when @Dorje108: and I struggled very hard, for a period of several months, to restore his original versions of the articles in wikipedia or some of the content from them, with no success. I've already described that and you said you don't want to hear any more about it, but please be understanding that it was stressful for me at the time. And I got scared not because I am angry but because of those previous experiences. And for someone to delete one of my posts was a serious breach of the wikipedia policies on WP:TPO. More later. I've already said all that elsewhere :). Robert Walker (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gokhale Method, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gokhale. 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) 09:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss this under the Talk section of the topic, not through a rollback war! Erikdr (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Erikdr, I would not call one single revert a rollback war, but if you'd like me to explain, I will do so over there.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia recommends-but does not require-that editors review 2 good article nominees for every one that they nominate. This is due to what is essentially a constant backlog of good article nominations. You currently have a very high number of articles-8-which you have nominated to be considered in the "Philosophy and religion" section. Would you mind reviewing some? It doesn't have to be mine, just a certain number to help decrease the pileup. It will also increase the likelihood that your own will be reviewed more quickly. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Display name 99, thanks for the tip. I am aware of this policy, but I have never managed to take an article to GA status, so I am reluctant to advise someone else how to do so. But as soon as I have gone through an assessment myself, I will be reviewing GA nominations all over the place. Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. Best wishes to you. Display name 99 (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Display name 99, did you have any particular article in mind, that you would like to get assessed?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not have a particular one, no. I'm actually working on reviewing the Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro article right now. You'll see I've made some minor edits. You'll receive a bot notification once I've uploaded the full review page. Display name 99 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Bump. Display name 99 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Display name 99.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The article Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

On 9 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro ordained the British monk who set up the first Theravada monastic community in Britain? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Callanecc!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the status of this film article's quality on the talk page there. Recently, I have brought in a set of edits on Scorsese's film Kundun following a large number of edits I made to his more recent film Silence. The director's interest in both Buddhism and Christianity are of interest to many readers. If you have any requests for any enhancements you might like to see brought into the article during peer review for Silence, or possibly if you have time to do the peer review following my nomination of this film on the review page there, then this might be a good time to list your comments and suggestions since I have some free time in this coming week for editing the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. I still don't understand why the article had not been assessed before. I probably did not notice the politics going on. The assessment sounds interesting. Are you talking about a peer review or good article nomination? I have articles listed for both as well. On Buddhism.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC) @JohnWickTwo:.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If it sounds like a good approach then I've just recently added some new images to the Silence film and you could initiate the good article review on the top of the talk page for Silence whenever its convenient for you to start. After that I could offer to prepare further edits on the Kundun film in order to nominate it for promotion later in the month if that sounds like a useful approach. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to help, but i'd like your help with a peer review article of my own as well. I don't think that evaluating each others articles for GA simultaneously is a good thing, but your input on the peer review of this article here would certainly be a nice way to return the favor.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC) JohnWickTwo

Sounds good. It generally takes me a least a day to do a peer review and I'll need at least a day to look some things up. If I understand correctly then the next step along with my peer review leads to your review of Silence before you turn to your GBN article with the completed peer review. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, JohnWickTwo, we can start with Silence. To be frank, I have not seen this movie yet. I have read the article, however. Furthermore, I have not done any GA reviews yet, but I did nominate an article for GA successfully, and contributed as the main contributor to a list of B-class articles. If you think I qualify, I am okay with starting the GA.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, its a green light on both sides. You can initiate the review for the film by clicking the tab at the top of the talk page for Silence whenever you are ready. You can list your article concerns for the film on the review page which will be linked automatically for you. Here is a representative film review if its useful here: [1]. I've already read your article and should be able to get one or two things looked up today in order to type in the GBN peer review which you requested. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

JohnWickTwo, okay, I am working on it now. Will write a bit before saving. Meanwhile, I have noticed the large extent of vandalism before the article was protected. Do you know how this vandalism is motivated?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Last April there was a good deal of disruptive editing and page protection was set after some IP accounts were trying to force material into the article and refused to start talk. The protection looks appropriate. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Though a bit on the aggressive side, since most of the disruptive edits were sourced. Also, is there any particular reason why no reply was given here? It seems legitimate, and still, the references proposed have not been integrated in the article.

I am not blaming you for anything of course, but I just want to know if there has been any biased editing or censoring that I need to be aware of.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

My own edits on the article only started about a month ago, which was after the page protection was put on the article last April. If it helps, this edit identifies the last edit before the page protection last April here: [2]. Regarding the LA Times article request from the IP editors, I did include it just last week as an expansion to the reception section in the article (it is the Justin Chang review if you are interested). Separately, some good news on the peer review you requested since I was able to get to the library earlier today, and I should be able to type in the peer review before tomorrow morning. Then, I can start on your good comments on the film review page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand there was some POV-pushing and citing less reliable sources. Nevertheless, I feel too little leeway was given to some of the so-called vandals. Apparently, in the case of some editors, when the number of edits reaches the 10000s, so does their impatience. But past mistakes aside, with regard to the Global Buddhist Network article, all sources should be online, and if they're not, just let me know, and I'll find a way to send the sources as files to you. Unfortunately, many of the sources are in Thai language, so I don't expect you to check each source. Just reading the article and checking it for neutrality, clarity and such will be sufficient. I wouldn't want to impose on you to go to a library! JohnWickTwo, thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You were very prompt and I have typed in the peer review to get things started there. Separately, your concern for the IP-editor comments were of interest to me, especially since I have already added the LA Times article which they wanted to the article last week. Let me know if more material suggested from the IP-editors should be included, and it might help to switch to the film review page and my comments there for this. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks both for your beautiful work on the article. I'm usually not a fan of the GA-system, as I think it enables rather poor and lazy reviews, although I have to say, this was a pleasant surprise. Farang Rak Tham, your review was quite exceptionally thorough. I've undone the rubbing out of your comments, as I think they might be helpful for feature reviews of the article. JohnWickTwo, please feel free to open a peer review; I'll be happy to give you my comments. Whenever you're ready. CHeers, Gertanis (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Gertanis. I have tried my best, as it was my first GA review.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham; That was a fine effort for your first GA review and I think you may have a good feel for how to perhaps do more of them in the future. There are other films dealing with Buddhist themes and possibly you could look at some of them when time allows. @Gertanis: Your comments at Silence were appreciated, and I am placing the peer review for the film's possible enhancement towards future promotion. Separately, your comments on Kurosawa are in the article now and perhaps you could leave some comments about the Images included in the Kurosawa article as well on the review page there. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Gokhale Method, Farang Rak Tham!

Wikipedia editor Robertgombos just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Improved a bit the article. Very good!

To reply, leave a comment on Robertgombos's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Robert G. (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Mduvekot. Farang Rak Tham, thanks for creating Gokhale Method!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I have marked statements that are not supported by the sources cited with the failed verification template.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mduvekot (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Noticed your revert. Your edit summary is not supported by the source you cited. Please provide a source for your claim. This is content dispute, let's take it to the talk page. Mduvekot (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Mduvekot that i respond to this quite late, but I'm having some technical glitches that earlier prevented me from doing anything other than reverts, however odd that sounds. I'm happy to tweak the article through a good talk page discussion.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Well, I mean, of course I'm sorry you're having technical difficulties. Take your time. :) Mduvekot (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, just had two edit windows appearing simultaneously, but it seems to save now, lol.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Mduvekot, there's been considerable discussion regarding the content you've tagged. Please check the article to see whether the tags still apply, or whether the tags should be removed or changed. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look now. Mduvekot (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I've posted my feedback on the talk page. I hope you find them helpful, Mduvekot (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will take a look now. Oh and by the way, the glitch was due to a conflict between WikEd and the new syntax highlighting function.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Merit (Buddhism) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Doctorg -- Doctorg (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The article Merit (Buddhism) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Merit (Buddhism) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Doctorg -- Doctorg (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I want to apologise for my terse and impatient responses to you. I'm glad we're making progress, but I think we're approaching the article from very different perspectives as editors, which could continue to result in more clashes between us. I personally don't think that we can make much progress on the article without finding better sources. My impression from you is that you perhaps don't understand the nature of the concerns of other editors, and want to quickly resolve all issues regardless.

I have a standard approach to working on articles like this: Encouraging editors to find better sources. Finding agreement on the quality of the current sources. Determining how to best use the range of sources available. I've already started searching for better sources. Mduvekot has done a great deal on reviewing how the current sources are being used. I'd like to start a review of the quality of the sources, which we're missing at this point beyond a few comments on primary sources.

I hope we can find a way to work together more smoothly, and would like to hear your thougths on how it has gone so far and what changes you'd like to see. --Ronz (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ronz, apologies accepted. I am also sorry to slow in understanding you and the other editors, but this is the first and only alternative medicine article I ever wrote, and at first, i was not aware the policies for medicine articles were that different from other articles. We have the same aim in trying to upgrade the article and make it more encyclopedic, so I suggest we focus on that. I am reading up on Wikipedia policy with regard to medicine, but am not familiar with the medical databases and sources, despite coming from a family of physicians, lol. So I am not sure whether I can be of much assistance from now on, but I'll take a look now and then to see what I can learn and check whether the article will be deleted, haha. Anyway, it is not my article of course, just like Wikipedia is no-one's individual property.

That said, I have doubts as to whether the subject of the article is really that much opposed to clinical trial and scientific scrutiny, it seems to me it is just merely a method that is very new and needs more time to get systematic and scientifically sound. I think it lacks the irrational tendencies so characteristic of fringe theories, but proponents might be using the "language" of alternative disciplines now and then, which has in this case led it to get tagged for fringe.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, 7%266%3Dthirteen, hahaha--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of this revert. Doucleff is not a reliable source for any science, let alone for being given prominence over WHO research results. If you don't understand this, and how FRINGE requires us to present scientific consensus, then please discuss it on the talk page. This is exactly they type of edit that falls under ArbCom sanctions. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

See talk page and WP:BURDEN--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz:.

Thank you for responding and starting a discussion on the talk page. I've replied there. --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And apologies for not adding the source from the start. --Ronz (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

On 14 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Merit (Buddhism), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Buddhism, the doing of good deeds, known as merit-making, is seen as a form of saving for the future? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Merit (Buddhism). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Merit (Buddhism)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex Shih.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't want you seen as encouraging personal attacks against others, so reverted the comment. So how does that comment help improve the article in any manner? I'm trying to figure out how to write an RfC for the content dispute, but there's nothing to work from other than editors being upset about how copyright violations and plagiarism are addressed. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I didn't realize you were the editor involved with Gokhale Method. I hope we can address Berzin on the content issues there. --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ronz, as I said, his comment was nonsensical, but I felt it should not have been you who removed it. Considering your edits at the Berzin article and Gokhale, your efforts to improve articles often appear destructive, even if you intend to follow WP policies. Considering the large editing experiences you have, if you want to make it to admin, I'd suggest you become a little less deletionist. Anyway, that's my two cents coming from a newbie, but well-intended at that.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I find it best to focus on content and try to smooth over ruffled feathers best I can.

As far as the content issues go, I don't see how to make a useful RfC out of what's been discussed. Basically, some editors want to revert into the oversighted article history. If someone wants to try to get the oversight removed, they need to go through the proper procedures to do so. Given what's already been attempted, I hope everyone can see that it is unlikely anything productive would come of it.

The very first comment on the article talk page outlines what needs to be done to improve the article: establish notability and find independent sources for verification and expansion. We've made progress on establishing notability enough that it will likely stand. The rest of the discussions are attempts to find ways around the need for independent sources. From my perspective those discussions have gone nowhere, and strayed far from anything that looks like good faith attempts at improving the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Ronz, I agree with all of that, and I understand the problems with copyright and primary sources in the article. Still, WikiProject Buddhism has only a tiny group of active editors, so we'd have to be careful not to "bite" them away.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

If the project is so concerned about the number of editors, then maybe they should actively educate their editors on policies and guidelines so these disputes are avoided. I don't do much other than use {{welcomeg}}. It's a bit overwhelming, but both introduces editors to Wikipedia and provides a good reference. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)/Archive %(counter)d

| counter=1 | maxarchivesize=75K

| archiveheader=

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Farang Rak Tham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

| minthreadsleft=5 | minthreadstoarchive=2}}

Hello, Farang Rak Tham! 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 excited about 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 when making edits to pages. Happy editing! JimRenge (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day 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 Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry 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 IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Dhammakaya meditation, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Sorry, but I do not believe that the Visuddhimagga states that "These steps correspond with the outline of samatha meditation as described in the Visuddhimagga, an influential Theravada manual on meditation." Please cite a reliable secondary source that supports your statement. (WP:BURDEN, WP:RS) JimRenge (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A relevant quote has already been provided, no original research was done.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Dhammakaya meditation. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

See above. More time than 16 minutes should have been given to make corrections before giving me another warning.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Dhammakaya meditation. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, JimRenge. But just out of curiosity, why didn't you remove the link? Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I see now that you have removed the link from the references, but left it in the section 'external links'. Shouldn't that be the other way around? The website supports the fact that Dhammakaya meditation is currently also called Middle Way Meditation by some teachers, so the link should be in the references. The word Middle Way Meditation has been redirecting to Dhammakaya meditation for a while now, so it would make sense to explain that redirect. I have now removed the link from external links, which could be regarded as superfluous and a form of advertising, but i propose to restore the link in the reference box.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion, marketing, advertising or recruitment (WP:NOT).

If you really believe that http://mdwmeditation.org/# is an appropriate source in an encyclopedia, you might read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page (WP:DR), and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Another link has been used to replace the problematic external link.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Phramongkolthepmuni page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This has been fixed.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You removed sourced info about controversies, without mentioning this in the edit-summary. Are you related to this movement? Have you got a WP:COI? Please take care of WP:NPOV. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!, I am not aware of leaving out anything from the edit summaries. The sections concerning Wat Phra Dhammakaya and the Dhammakaya Foundation are copied from their respective wiki pages, without serving any useful purpose here in this page. Please see the talk page of the Dhammakaya Movement. This article concerns the tradition of Dhammakaya, which involves many temples, also including Wat Luang Pho Sod Dhammakayaram. There is no point in putting so much information about any specific temple within this tradition, if these temples have already been mentioned in the article, and these temples already have their own pages. My concern is that the information is redundant and repetitive, and it is difficult to update and maintain so many different pages on the Dhammakaya tradition which are all repetitive. Please understand. You will notice I have not removed these controversies in the pages mentioned. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Khemadhammo.Apologies for my harsh words; I was in a hurry this morning. I'll have another, closer look at it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!, no offense taken. I'd appreciate it if you'd reconsider the reverts you did of nine of my edits, as they were done for different reasons and involved different aspects of the contents of the Dhammakaya Movement page. I'd be surprised you'd disagree with all of them. Let us continue this discussion on Talk:Dhammakaya Movement. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I checked them; see my comments at the talkpage over there. In addition to WP:COI and WP:NPOV, also read WP:SPA. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has become obsolete due to a page merge of Wat Phra Dhammakaya and Dhammakaya Movement.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prayudh Payutto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dhammakaya. 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) 10:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Farang Rak Tham, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Wat Phra Dhammakaya has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, I will rephrase the paragraph that was too closely paraphrased. Thank you.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Farang Rak Tham/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Joe Roe (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Hello, Farang Rak Tham. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. JimRenge (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

With regard to your message on my page, I can disclose that I am not being paid for my edits whatsoever. I have a strong interest in Theravada Buddhism, and have written about a variety of subjects in Theravada Buddhism, on websites and also starting now on Wikipedia. If you need my help with any other subjects in Theravada Buddhism apart from the Dhammakaya Tradition, you can let me know, as I have already mentioned in the Wikiproject of Buddhism.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC) (Copied from my talk page to keep the discussion in one place. JimRenge (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC))

Thank you for disclosing that you are not a paid editor. However, "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, or legal – can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense." (WP:EXTERNALREL) WP:DISCLOSE states: "If you become involved in an article where you have a general COI (including a financial COI) that does not involve being paid to edit Wikipedia, place the {{connected contributor}} template at the top of affected talk pages." JimRenge (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

But I do not have anything I can "materially gain or lose" (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#cite note-4) with writing these articles here. I am currently living in Holland, and English-language Wikipedia links will not be looked at that much here. The subject matter of the tradition i write about is simply something i appreciate very much. Also, when I first started, the article was a messy mixture of bad translated primary source material and articles from Thai news papers, with little to no academic sources quoted. I have at times quoted a minority view in some parts, but I am correcting that now, as I am reading more independent sources. Please take a look at previous edits and let me know if I have done anything that requires improvement.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

What is written in the articles on this Wikipedia does not affect my life much in any way apart from my own mind's pleasure or pain. I have not been directed by any superior to write anything, not do I report to any superiors about it.Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Merit (Buddhism), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CE. 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) 11:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, DPL bot. It's fixed now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:PM Abhisit participates in ceremony.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) 16:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Farang Rak Tham/Peace Revolution. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon, I have not been able to find your comment. Perhaps this is a glitch. When I click the link above I can only see the comments from seven years ago. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert is referring to this comment itself. He has not posted to the linked deletion discussion but just pointed out that it exists. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Feel free to comment on the new article.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to ping you.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If I were reviewing, I would ask the author to file a Request for Undeletion to have the deleted article temporarily undeleted in order to show that the draft is better than the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the tip! I'll see what I can do.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Robert McClenon, i have submitted an undeletion request. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I have merged the deleted history with your draft. I think that will satisfy your request. There is no need to restore the article in main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Peace Revolution. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Peace Revolution 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ, would you care to expand on that decision a bit? Thanks. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Farang Rak Tham, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Peace Revolution. Thanks! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wat Phra Dhammakaya page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Farang Rak Tham. 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)

To answer your question: yes, we are looking at the same article. But what you consider "a large number" of disruptive edits is actually a matter of perspective. Please take a look at our protection policy: "Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism can be semi-protected". I agree that around the 20th of february editing was very heavy, but that has since died down considerably (hence my comment about not much activity), and has been kept in check easily. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the response anyway.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome; just as an example what is seen as semi-protection worthy: Ivao Group. Lectonar (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment of Mulian Rescues His Mother -- it seems to take longer and longer for public minded editors to find the unassessed artiticles, so I am all the more grateful.

However, "C" is low. The basic criterion for "C" at Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Assessment#Instructions is "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup."

The criteria for "B" seem more to the point: "article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards."

That said, I'd be eager to hear your suggestions for improvement!

Cheers and thanks again. ch (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

CWH, I think the contents are very complete, considering how hard it is to find English sources about the subject. However, there are still some lay out errors on it that would prevent a B assessment, in my opinion, as well as some loose pieces of information. Feel free to consult others about this though—I am not a great expert, merely starting a discussion where there should be one. You might also want to ask for feedback through Wikipedia:Peer review. I also have an article there, so maybe we can exchange opinions there.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Flow chart merit and retribution Spiro.png. 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) 18:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Farang Rak Tham. You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peace Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Comercio. 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) 09:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

	Truly illuminating idea
	Yes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to say, thanks for your comments, and thanks so much also for reverting Joshua Jonathan's edit which removed my post to the Four Noble Truths talk page. Sorry for my verboseness in the discussion of WP:RS. I value your contributions to the discussion. I'm taking a break for several days, at least a few days, or until the topic ban discussionWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for renewed topic-ban is over. Perhaps we can continue the interesting discussion after that. There is much we could discuss, and I'd also be interested to find out more about the issues with Ven. Dhammika's edits and perhaps you could talk more about that then. But I felt that it was not the time and place to discuss this on the project page when things were so heated in that debate already, which is partly why I responded to your comment rather indirectly. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the issues you raise are important, Robertinventor, but you discuss them at the wrong place, with the wrong people. It seems to me you take delight in conflict.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I just logged in for a few minutes to check the progress of the topic ban against me. I have drafted an essay on WP:RS in Buddhism which may help which I plan to submit to the Buddhism project for comment. Meanwhile you may find it interesting to read: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Religious sources. There is no need for me to comment on the wikipedia guidelines themselves as this was settled there long ago. Indeed Shravasti Dhammika's own books would be excellent secondary sources on Buddhism for the project. I will use his books as an example along with Walpola Rahula and the Dalai Lama in my essay. But not just now. I need to take a wikibreak of a few days to calm down first. I do not take a delight in conflict. But this discussion brings back very painful memories from a time when @Dorje108: and I struggled very hard, for a period of several months, to restore his original versions of the articles in wikipedia or some of the content from them, with no success. I've already described that and you said you don't want to hear any more about it, but please be understanding that it was stressful for me at the time. And I got scared not because I am angry but because of those previous experiences. And for someone to delete one of my posts was a serious breach of the wikipedia policies on WP:TPO. More later. I've already said all that elsewhere :). Robert Walker (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gokhale Method, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gokhale. 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) 09:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss this under the Talk section of the topic, not through a rollback war! Erikdr (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Erikdr, I would not call one single revert a rollback war, but if you'd like me to explain, I will do so over there.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia recommends-but does not require-that editors review 2 good article nominees for every one that they nominate. This is due to what is essentially a constant backlog of good article nominations. You currently have a very high number of articles-8-which you have nominated to be considered in the "Philosophy and religion" section. Would you mind reviewing some? It doesn't have to be mine, just a certain number to help decrease the pileup. It will also increase the likelihood that your own will be reviewed more quickly. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Display name 99, thanks for the tip. I am aware of this policy, but I have never managed to take an article to GA status, so I am reluctant to advise someone else how to do so. But as soon as I have gone through an assessment myself, I will be reviewing GA nominations all over the place. Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. Best wishes to you. Display name 99 (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Display name 99, did you have any particular article in mind, that you would like to get assessed?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not have a particular one, no. I'm actually working on reviewing the Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro article right now. You'll see I've made some minor edits. You'll receive a bot notification once I've uploaded the full review page. Display name 99 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Bump. Display name 99 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Display name 99.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The article Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Farang Rak Tham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.