User talk:VictoriaGrayson/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:VictoriaGrayson. 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.

Hi Victoria. Thank you very much for this User talk:Joshua Jonathan#2 Edit Requests on HINDUISM page this source! I'm really delighted to see support for historical facts, instead of the ongoing debates based on modern mythology. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You can add whatever you see in the reference or even summarize. But remember that the page is really very long right now, compare it with Christianity or Islam, you will know. Thank you for your edits. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism is the most complicated religion in the world. More than Christianity or Islam. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I really appreciate your use of sources and quotes; they invite further inquiry, instead of useless "discussions" between fixed points of view. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, your recent anti-Bush edit to the 2012 Benghazi article lede[1] was undone by another editor here[2] with an explanation: "(I don't see Bush referenced in the source provided for this. Also, it's not clear why this belongs in the lede.)" I agree. I kindly request that you limit yourself to constructive and legitimate edits, particularly to the lede. We're working to keep the article complete and balanced and up to date. Thanks much! -- Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"Continuity of the personality" or "continuity of mind or awareness"?!? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

continuity of delusion.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Sounds correct, though. Suggestion for sources? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to pull up scholarly books on Abhidhamma, Abhidharma, Yogacara, Madhyamaka and tantra which should explain all the varying aspects on this topic.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your note on my talk page. I think I checked to late. I am very infrequently here … Kt66 (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I hope you don't mind that I reverted your removal of sources at Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, I was actually thinking if we could discuss about that first at the Talk Page? =P I agree that Tony Page isn't a Buddhist scholar, he is merely made some English translations of the scriptures. When it comes to translations even, I don't think one should be a Buddhist scholar to qualify. Similarly we are using Philip Kapleau's Three pillars of Zen as a source for Zen Buddhism even he was a mere practicant without any academic qualifications in the subject. Cheers! :) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC) Copied to Talk:Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra#Tony Page's translation

Good morning, Vic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What an odd message JJ.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've started to try and consolidate the References a little. I think wherever possible best to just use the {{sfn}} template for references and point to the "Main sources". Best to avoid named references on such a changing article as if the first named reference in a series gets deleted then the rest in the series get broken. Thanks. Chris Fynn (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Dorje Shugden controversy, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atmananda Krishna Menon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian. 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) 09:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you review my recent edits to Tulku Dragpa Gyaltsen. Thanks. Chris Fynn (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right. The late Dr. Usula Bernis is not an independent source. She was a long time student and a biographer of the previous Tomo Geshe who propagated the practice of Shugden and was a Shugden practitioner herself. I understand she was also an associate of Thomas Canada, who appears to be the most virulent of contributors to pro-Shugden / anti-Dalai Lama sites and Facebook pages. Some of his comments simply seethe with pure hatred. If he is an example of what may happen to a person who has worshipped Shugden for years, it is pretty nasty. Chris Fynn (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@CFynn: I agree. Also that Bernis "source" is never cited by scholars till this day, since it was rejected from publication.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you noticed that 37 seems to be quite a popular number? Prasangika37, Essence37, Audrey37 ... Chris Fynn (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

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

And further, you may want to consider the possibility of a magic unicorn? (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 07:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're close at my tail! Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what I was afraid with Bhutanic's edits. (S)he seldom added any sources, but I wanted to assume good faith since (s)he obviously made a lot of effort with respect to that article. I totally agree with your revert though. And of course, Bhutanic has the chance to restore any paragraph as long as (s)he can provide a decent source supporting the edit! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Kadampa Tradition Survivors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Victoria, per talk at that article, I suggest that you preserve it by userfying it in a sandbox in your own user space just in case. As it sits right now, it's under construction and is in pretty rough shape. I'd do some significant improvement and expansion on it if I were you. Where the whole article is basically one long quotation, even if cited, it is not the best way to create an article. Just an FYI (I've created over 200 WP articles and sent about 40 to DYK, so I know whereof I speak on article creation here...) Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have any time left over from the never ending battle with NKT pods and their NPOV edits, would you kindly look at Shambhala Training. IMO that article relies far too heavily on primary sources. The only secondary or tertiary sources cited are where the article explains some Tibetan terms and concepts. There are no objective secondary sources used in relation to Shambhala Training itself. Consequently the article reads like a subjective promotional piece - not an encyclopaedic article. I've left a note about this on the talk page of the article as well. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As requested, I have closed the merge discussion with consensus to merge. An administrator is needed to merge the histories. I have not attempted to actually merge the articles, since this is not an area with which I am familiar except by reviewing the articles in preparation for closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me on my talk page what the issue is anyway? I can see that there is an issue about whether particular Buddhist sources are primary or secondary. Other than that, I can see that I was asked, essentially out of nowhere, to look at an issue in which I had no previous involvement, and very little knowledge. I also see that another editor says that there is a conduct issue, but I have no idea what the conduct issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that he is going and looking for people who will agree with him, and canvassing people who will agree with him? In my case, he has no way of knowing whether I will agree or disagree, since I have no edit history in Buddhism and very little knowledge of Buddhism. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not canvassing anyone. Maybe I am being canvassed, but if so, I don't have a clue. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I expect and assume that I am out of the loop now. As I tried to explain to Robert Walker, I have no interest in being involved in an argument about which is the better version of an article on Buddhism. I'm not a Buddhist; I'm Catholic. My knowledge of Buddhism is essentially that it is one of the world's major religions, and that it has good ethical teachings that are very similar to those of Christianity. I didn't want to be dragged in, and maybe I won't be again. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:I know it is a pretty thankless task trying to counteract the POV editing of NKT / "Shugden Buddhist" zealots - but I appreciate it even if I haven't always agreed. Even when one of them withdraws others will enter the fray so it goes on and on. I have had "debates" with them since 1997 on Usenet (you can still find those discussions by searching Google groups under Talk Religion Buddhism) - Geshe Kelsang himself even sent me some replies, so it was quite interesting, and generally much more civil back then. But after 17 years of it on and off now feeling to old to continue, so turning what energy I have to editing less controversial Tibetan Buddhism, and Tibetan language and script related articles (most TB articles are a mess) where edits have at least a chance of standing. Also writing some new articles - and contributing photos and graphics to Commons where nobody has ever objected to anything I have contributed (under the name Cfynn not CFynn there). Good luck with holding the fort against the NKT siege. You never know I may be back one day, but for now trying to avoid it and let others like yourself try to clean up their propagandising. Good luck and take care. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, all, note that I've filed on P37 at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Dorje_Shugden_controversy. @CFynn: also. Montanabw^(talk) 23:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Here is an interview with Robert Barnett. I linked it as an external link on the Western Shugden Society. I lack time to use it to improve the article. But maybe better we leave it with this external link reference? It could be also used for the Dorje Shugden Controversy, I added it there as an external link under the rubric Protests.

• Protests against the Dalai Lama over Dorje Shugden – An interview with Robert Barnett, Dec 12, 2014

Kt66 (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

According to Dr. Alexander Berzin, Tsongkhapa received his main Kadampa teachings from a Nyingma lama:

"There was a very famous Nyingma lama at the time called Lhodrag Namka-gyeltsen, and this Nyingma lama had, continually, visions of Vajrapani. And he invited Tsongkhapa, and they became mutual teacher and disciple. It’s from this Nyingma lama that Tsongkhapa got his main lam-rim transmissions from the Kadam tradition – two of the main Kadam lineages. There are three Kadampa lineages that had split. He got two of them from this Nyingma lama and one from a Kagyu lama. The Kadampa was divided into three: One was the lam-rim teachings, one was the textual teachings, and one was the oral guideline teachings. So he got the lam-rim and the oral guideline lineages from this Nyingma lama, and the textual tradition from a Kagyu lama. This I find very interesting. One always thinks that he got them from Kadampa lamas; he didn’t. And that Gelugpa was so separate from all these other traditions; it wasn’t. "

Source: http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/teachers/lineage_masters/life_of_tsongkhapa/life_of_tsongkhapa.html

So Tsongkhapa's lineage of Kadampa teachings, which Geshe Kelsang the NKT and other "Shugden Buddhists" claim to be heir to, came via a lineage which passed through Nyingma lamas. Today "Shugden Buddhists" criticise HHDL for taking teachngs from Nyingma lamas and mixing them with the "pure" tradition of Tsongkhapa. If Je Tsongkhapa had had that kind of narrow sectarian view there would have been no tradition of Kadampa teachings including Lam Rim passed down in Tsongkhapa's Gelugpa tradition.

Chris Fynn (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Nice info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You all (Victoria too) need to help me clarify something. (Cause I'm not a Buddhist and after a while certain texts and technical discussions begin to make my head want to explode) Isn't the Dalai Lama the head of the Gelug school? (So says the Gelug article) And isn't the problem that the Shugden/NKT folks want to claim they are the "pure" (i.e. fundamentalist, "our way is the only way," other branches within the mahayana tradition are inferior in their thinking) "Gelug" school and that the Dalai Lama is not? I am concerned, as some of the phrasing I'm running across suggests that the Shugden/NKT followers ARE the Gelugs, but that seems that they are trying to appropriate that label away from the followers of the version supported by the Dalai Lama. Clarify. Montanabw^(talk) 03:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw:The NKT is just a group of mostly European people that are fake monks, per the rules of Buddhist Vinaya. Their study is strictly Kelsang Gyatso's books, particularly Heart Jewel. So no, they are not Gelugs by any stretch of the imagination. Per Columbia professor Barnett, the reason why they demonstrate is for publicity. So ultimately the "problem" is merely the fact that the NKT wants to advertise itself.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I did see that BBC documentary that focused on the cult-like aspects, and I have enough familiarity with cults in general that I picked up on that pretty fast. But I notice you seeem to occasionally interchange Shugden stuff and the term(s) "Gelug" or gelugpa" - and the editors on the opposite side do even more so. Thus my quesiton to clarify that yes, the Dalai Lama IS the leader of the Gelug school and, hence, "Gelug" is within the mainstream. Montanabw^(talk) 05:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Shugden was practiced by the Gelugpas historically speaking, and is thus associated with them. But as of 2014 that is a matter of the past. Yes the Dalai Lama is the head of the Gelug school.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

My question is why you said (on a different person's talk page), "The Gelug school has highly unusual perspectives.. I would never read or cite Gelug Geshes." Yet the Dalai Lama is originally from the Gelug tradition and works with the Geshes ordained within his tradition, thus they are, presumably, Gelug Geshes. ( I am thinking, for example, of people such as Thubten Yeshe and those associated with the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, which I have always understood to be closely associated with the Dalai Lama and "mainstream" if there is such a thing as "mainstream" Tibetan Buddhism or "mainstream" Buddhism in general. Can you elighten me as you your position on this? Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Good morning Vic. I'm trying to refrain as much as possible from responding in this hopeless discussion, since every response provokes another round of miscomprehension; it's leading nowhere. People who don't understand the difference between faith and scholarship, and don't understand proper arguments, can't be convinced. "You can lead the donkey to the well, but you can't force it to drink." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)keep

When you are dealing with religion, it's tough to keep away the Mastodons. I think it's OK to focus on actual edits, Jonathan and indeed, the tl;dr is just not worth the time. Montanabw^(talk) 18:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for losing it on the talk page and getting myself blocked. The final trigger on my side was when you pinged fellow editors. This whole dispute has felt so acrimonious from the start that the ping looked sinister.

The block has had a silver lining. I must admit, I needed some time out. It's been a circuit breaker.

I still have the same problems with content but I hope there is some way we can eventually make headway with collaborating. Moonsell talk 01:56, 22 December 2014

Moonsell, you really don't get it, do you? People can ping any one for anything so long as it is within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. You refuse to understand that material on WP needs to be sourced to third party, reliable sources that are not us! Even if you are "right" (and "verifiability" is not necessarily "truth", especially for religion articles) you STILL need a reliable third-party source to verify it. Nothing more, nothing less. I hope you use your block to read the policies and guidelines of Wikipdia and come back with a better attitude. Montanabw^(talk) 18:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know you, you don't encourage this ;) Anyway, best wishes! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	You deserve a barnstar Tito☸Dutta 21:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I've made a concrete proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel like helping with the COI at Aro gTér? That page needs a hard woman like you, got a problem COI editor who is obviously a shill but honestly you are better at calling out problematic pages than I am. Ogress _smash! 07:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson and Ogress: The Aro gTér people seem to be a fairly harmless bunch of hippies playing at being Tibetan tantrikas in fancy dress. Amazingly they actually do take it all very seriously and get upset if anyone questions what they are doing, their fantasy lineage and their fantasy gTér-ma (don't forget the accent). Of course they are much, much nicer than the Shugdenites, but may get almost as exasperating. I'm certain they won't be able to come up with a single with a single reliable source to substantiate any of their claims. Maybe best just rewrite the article to say the Aro gTér claim ABC; Aro gTér claim DEF; ... Aro gTér claim XYZ; Happy new year. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW The Khandro Yeshé Réma article should probably be merged with the Aro gTér article - this figure has no notability outside of Aro gTér. BTW Centuries ago there was a historic Dzogchen teacher called Aro Yeshe Jungne, but Aro gTér has no connection with him or his teachings ~ of which only one or two small texts survive. Chris Fynn (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• the facial hair alone is enough to make me want to prod-tag the article! :-O Montanabw^(talk) 22:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson:, things are getting out of hand on the talk page again and I'm outnumbered by apparent meatpuppets. Unrelatedly, I noticed Prasangika37 show up there, is he edit-stalking you? Ogress _smash! 17:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress:Maybe Prasangika37 is edit stalking me.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Montanabw^(talk) 03:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Lily W (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have filed an SPI here naming LilyW, JosephYon, ZuluPapa5 and Arthur chos. Montanabw^(talk) 21:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

diff: thanks! You made me laugh again, with a broad grin; that's highly appreciated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm always happy to see people willing to partake in the wikipedia project. However you only have to mark text as belonging to a primary source - there is no need to delete it. Deletion in these cases often denies the opportunity for editors to provide context to what is written there. In this case, there is a huge surfeit of written material that focusses on the Madhyamaka approach to Anatta - so much so that I considered it best to go 'back' to a well recognised scholarly commentary of a commentary of a text.

You and I probably differ regarding our definitions of 'Primary' vs 'Secondary' sources. I, for one, do not consider it necessary (although I agree it is preferred) for a secondary source to be contemporaneous, or written in English. I also recognise the long traditions of scholarship that are found within the Buddhist monastic universities - and I believe that they have been as subject to rigourous peer review as anything which is found in our modern times.

I also believe that a text can be both a primary source (when it is the subject of a discourse, it becomes a primary source) but also a secondary source (it can still be informative with regards to what it is commenting upon) - and indeed, I believe that this is generally accepted, if not widely understood.

Here is a reference to an old part of the RS page. (I've been here since 2004, so things do change). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years – or even centuries. The sacred or original text(s) of the religion will always be primary sources, but any other acceptable source may be a secondary source in some articles. For example, the works of Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a Roman Catholic perspective on many topics, but are primary sources for Thomas Aquinas or Summa Theologica.

I am begging you to tag offending text as PRIMARY where it offends you, but NOT to delete it - unless you have something to replace it that improves upon the quality of source..

If you wish to discuss this further, don't hesitate. (20040302 (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC))

Other for being "recognized" as a tulku - which hundreds of people are - is this person, Karma Thubten Trinlay Gyurme, notable? Chris Fynn (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you ignore it. He has been working on it for a long time and will probably continue working on it for a long time. I don't think that he has a clue how DRN works, which is that the process unfolds after a mediator accepts the case. He seems to think that DRN is a way to get content disputes resolved by a third party, rather than a way for a third party to help the editors resolve content disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You should take a look at "Karma in Buddhism" before Dorje started to edit it 25 march 2013 (pre-Dorje); it was a good article, also according to the original contributors "Shoot for FA". Then Dorje started to edit it, adding a large amount of quotes which definitely lowered the quality of the article 3 november 2014 (Dorje). It is this comparison which convinced me that there is a structural problem with Dorje's edits, and that that is the issue to be discussed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Using Advaita Vedanta scholars to discuss the meaning and prevalence of Anutpada in Buddhism needs qualifying, Victoria. It is true that it is found used a lot in prajnaparamita literature, but it does not play a major role in the madhyamaka literature. Please use RS that belong to the context. The Anutpada article looks suspiciously like WP:SYN / WP:ORIG. 10:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The concept of anutpada is certainly all over Madhyamaka literature. I have a page full of quotes from Nagarjuna and Candrakirti discussing it @20040302:.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, great - in which case, why not cite these sources and the televant domain-specific scholars, rather than scholars of a Hindu tradition? 20040302 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again... This guy seems to be on a crusade. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please note I am not in any crusader mission I am just expanding , if you have problem please discuss in talkpage ? Shrikanthv (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Mandukya Upanishad#Re-re-revert, all of you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "New Kadampa Tradition page usage of "Cult" in Lede". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 April 2015.

The request for formal mediation concerning New Kadampa Tradition page usage of "Cult" in Lede, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

How do I unsubscribe from these messages?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You can't, I'm afraid, unless they change the protocol. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I was sort of kidding around.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Should "Cult" be used in lead of the page about a Buddhist tradition, the New Kadampa Tradition". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 April 2015.

The request for formal mediation concerning Should "Cult" be used in lead of the page about a Buddhist tradition, the New Kadampa Tradition, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

With respect, wouldn't these edits be allowed under WP:PRIMARY? (as they are "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge") The information given wasn't interpreted and therefore wouldn't require a secondary source in this context. Helpsome (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Vic isn't fond of the DL. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I'm beginning to understand more of your dislike of Tsongkhapa, and his fellows. They haven't been too friendly of the "essentialists," haven't they? While the "essentialist" position can't be discarded from Buddhism; it may even have been an integrral part of the earliest Buddhism, while (Prasangika-)Nadhyamaka was a later development, carrying dependent origination and anatman to a truly new understanding. Best regards, 13:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!

No, that has nothing to do with anything @Joshua Jonathan:. All Madhyamaka negates atman and svabhava.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for responding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that Tsongkhapa disregards the main point of Madhyamaka and Mahayana in general.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is?!? Please please please, enlighten me; you know more about Tibetan Buddhism than I do, and I would really like to know what this point is. Please explain! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Karl Brunnholzl explains that "both Nagarjuna and Candrakırti emphasize again and again that all phenomena are without arising and ceasing". Tsongkhapa ignores this main point.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 12:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Center of the Sunlit Sky p.587. So, explain to me, what's the relevance? You once replied somewhere, if I remember correct, on the question what is the connection between several lifes, that it is karmic consequences (you didn't write exactly that, but this is what I remember). So, please explain, what's the relevance? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The main point of Madhyamaka and most Mahayana Sutras is Nonarisal. Everything is illusion. Tsongkhapa ignores all this.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"Everything is illusion" - isn't that very close to Advaita Vedanta? See Anutpada. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Does this have anything to do with the rejection of Svatantrikas? I can't find any info at Svatantrika on "nonarisal", but since it's not about the essentialist positions (a), I thought it might be the Svatantrikas (b), as mentioned at Rangtong#Prasangika and the rejection of essentialism. Sorry, couldn't help joining the discussion here :-) ! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Svatantrika is actually a Tibetan polemical category which is only vaguely based on Indian texts.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

JJ: "Continuity of the personality" or "continuity of mind or awareness"?!? VG: "continuity of delusion." User talk:VictoriaGrayson#Mindstream. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The ignorance of clinging to "me". Nagarjuna says:

"The clinging to “me” is exhausted, and thus karma and birth too."

VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am actually turning away from saying anything here, but. Victoria you are mistaken when you say

The main point of Madhyamaka and most Mahayana Sutras is Nonarisal. Everything is illusion. Tsongkhapa ignores all this.

Of course he does not ignore it, and neither do many Indian scholars including Candrakirti (who is followed zealously by Tsongkhapa) - Tsongkhapa cites Candrakirti while exploring the assertion you make (not a new idea). Candrakirti says "Because things are not produced causelessly, or from causes such as a divine creator, or from self, other or both self and other, they are produced dependently". Tsongkhapa breaks this down in very good detail (Chapter 15 entitled "Production is not refuted" of the Snow Lion edition of the LRCM, pp185-194). He summarises by stating "Once again, these opponents go wrong by not distinguishing "no intrinsic production" from "no production"."

Of course you do not hear me, Victoria, as you have nailed yourself to this conflation. I believe that your interpretation of Madhyamaka is indeed similar to the interpretation used by Gaudapada as you suggest JJ - however, it is not accepted by Candrakirti and his followers, who has had much greater sway on Madhyamaka in Buddhism than Gaudapada ever had.

Victoria, before you go on and on to me about how you are talking about "arising, not production" - this is just translation semantic. Moreover, these terms, when used in their negative sense, and according to context, are considered to be synonymous with sunyata, but that doesn't lend them any more potency regarding the annihilation of the universe into 'only illusion'.

The position of Buddhists is that if you hold a view "Everything is Illusion" then, by reason of inclusion, you must accept that both samsara and nirvana are only illusion - that liberation is illusion, and the path to liberation is illusion. Cessations must also be illusion - and this is the bind. If the cessation of suffering is illusion, then there is no escape from suffering (any escape would be illusory) - So the viewholder denies Buddhism. A name for such viewholders is "Nihilist".

One of the fundamental verses of Nagarjuna's MMK starts "Like a dream, like an illusion..." The "like" being used there is what separates Madhyamaka Buddhism from a nihilist position. If you cannot distinguish between "no essential arising" and "no arising", then the Madhyamaka tradition is a powerful means of destroying any chance of enlightenment. (20040302 (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC))

Nihilism is ceasing. Nihilism is not that things are illusion. As Brunnhozl says, Candrakirti emphasizes over and over again that phenomena are without arising or ceasing. Comans and King explain the differences between Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamaka. Your Gelug view is often described as crypto-realist, since Gelugs don't accept that things are illusion.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, could you be a little more coherent? You have a habit of making assertions with no reasoning whatsover, and then occasionally saying "someone says this" with no ability for me to see where you are talking about. It ends up being very weak for your position. What you say Brunnhozl says, is one thing, but Candrakirti himself says something else altogether. I provided you with a quote from his own work (the Madhyamakavatara) above. Secondly, Gelugpas are varied, they do not hold just one view. But I feel pretty safe in saying that all Gelugpas, including Tsongkhapa assert the existent of illusions. I also feel safe in saying that all Buddhists distinguish between an illusory piece of gold and a real piece of gold. Only one of the two has arisen as a piece of gold dependant on causes and conditions, the other one has arisen as the illusion of a piece of gold dependent on it's own (the illusion's) causes and conditions. Both of them are dependant-arisings, only one of them is an illusion. (20040302 (talk))

I already quoted Brunnhozl above. Please read the entire discussion.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok - but he is, frankly, wrong. They do not. (20040302 (talk))

Hey Vicky, it'd be better if you bolded your vote for śramaṇa at Talk:Sramana; I had set the vote to shramana but then when you suggested the IAST, I preferred it and the editor reviewing the section noted that there was no need to reopen the discussion, but merely indicate vote preference. Right now, your only bolded vote preference is oppose; if you add/change it to move to śramaṇa things might go faster? Ogress _smash! 21:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No question that the Human Rights in Tibet article reads like something written on behalf of the Chinese government. It's junk. But, it is best to quietly rework it in a step by step fashion, section by section, quietly, with very solid sources and keeping as much of the old stuff as possible, though sometimes reworked. (usually with a structure that meets NPOV by stating "source X says foo but source Y says oof!." ). I love BRD. You will never get consensus with a POV-pusher, all you can do is write BETTER and more balanced text, then go to 3O or wherever and get some people to agree with you. I used to have a boss at a job who said, "don't come to me with a problem unless you also have a solution." Hope this helps! Montanabw^(talk) 01:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Given your editing interests, you might want to keep an eye on the Dalai Lama article. A guy giving me serious cold-hot hostility issues is editing the crap out of it, and I'm dubious that the article is not going to need serious defragmenting and degaussing as he's openly stated on Talk that he is there on DL because he thinks it's been edited by people not "supportive" of the Dalai Lamas and that people claiming to be tulkus who aren't really reincarnates will be rightfully dispossessed of their roles by the Tibetan people (yeah, seriously, he said that).

Personally I'm fine letting him info-dump the page with cites and then picking apart problematic areas, as he correctly notes that we have wiki pages on each of the Dalai Lamas but only mention like two of them on the Dalai Lama page itself. However, he is pretty hostile to me; for example, claiming my use of the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism is because I studied Korean Seon about the same time as one of its editors, Robert Buswell Jr., which is... I mean, I think you see where this is going.. Ogress _smash! 00:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I also saw your other concern page, I have been kind of ill so I haven't waded in yet to such a hairy topic but I'm not ignoring it. I also think the advice given about quiet editing is wise. Ogress _smash! 00:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: @Cwobeel: Your comments, reverting my edited revision 667641821, and those of Cwobeel, belong on a Talk Page. Discussions such as yours and Cwobeel's should not generally be conducted in Undo or Revert edit summaries, which are not intended for that purpose. Also, insofar as you have standing with "pending changes reviewer rights", you should really try to show less bias if you choose to label a well-established news outlet source as not "neutral" enough. What do you consider a "more neutral" major news media source? -- Please provide me with an example or two of those that you deem more suitably "neutral". Also, I would advise that you should generally confine any discussions, such as statements of your personal opinions regarding news source's relative neutrality (of, say, The Washington Post vs. the Wall Street Journal) only to Talk Pages, and attempt to limit yourself, in any editing, to only constructive and legitimate edits. I'm just curious --- would you consider, say, the Washington Post more neutral, in your opinion, than the Wall Street Journal? Fox News Politics less neutral than, say, Media Matters? Professor JR (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		One half for you, the other half for Ms Sarah Welch, for your joint work on Yoga and the Yoga Sutras. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

And also a cup of tea, for edit-summaries like "changed my mind", asking questions at talkpages, and referring to noteworthy videos. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole religious views section of that article is an unsourced quagmire from beginning to end, I just added multiple tags. I don't favor blanking stuff that is on the right track just because it's unsourced, but clearly there is some serious work that needs to happen there. Montanabw^(talk) 04:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have created a discussion on the recent issues regarding WP:Caste system In India in ANI and specifically reported suspicious behavior of concerted behavior of a group of editors including you. Have a look. Regards AB^Talk 08:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Transformed: that's the kind of nuance were I'm simply lacking in fluency. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep turning the wheel of Dharma.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twobells (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 June 2015

Hi Vic. Something completely different from all the discussions: do you know this book The Hidden Lives of Brahman? I just acquired it, and it looks very promising. It uses both textal analysis and Anthropological fieldwork to describe Shankara's Vedanta as a practice to alter one's view and experience of reality. I thought you might like it too, given your interest in the topic and your preference for academic publications. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm only interested in what ways Advaita differs from Buddhism.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: don't forget to add a reference; as it is now, it might be reverted. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Leads don't need references. Let's see what happens.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually the lede DOES need references if the material isn't sourced in the article body. If it IS sourced in the article body, then you are correct, you don't need to source twice. Montanabw^(talk) 01:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the lead! Totally failed to notice that. Funny thing is: the article doesn't seem to mention any "ultimate goal". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It does mention Arhatship and Buddhahood.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I know you are the one person on Wikipedia who will simply nod when I say with great irritation, "Why is Tsongkhapa such rubbish!?" and not try to convince me of anything. (At least I hope so.) Okay, that's enough blowing-off steam. Back to the grind.

Oh, also, what pronouns should I be using for you? I hope that's not rude, but I just went with she but then I saw people using he, but then again they use he for me basically constantly... so while I'm here, if you want to register a preference (or lack of one), feel free to do so. (I myself use she, as might be expected from an ogress.) Ogress _smash! 04:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

She is fine.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

K. Ogress _smash! 09:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

{{subst:arbcom notice| Talk Page Etiquette}} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Talk_Page_Etiquette This is to confirm that you have been mentioned in an ArbCom discussionSoham321 (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

and.... a snow close. Yay for you! Montanabw^(talk) 23:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice to advise that the "Talk Page Etiquette" arbitration case, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined by the committee on account of the fact that it appears to have been withdrawn. Further information is available at the above link. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC).

Hello, I'm Human3015. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Buddhism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Human3015 knock knock • 00:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: Please see WP:HOUND.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

How its related here? you please read WP:RS. --Human3015 knock knock • 00:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: Stop replying on my talk page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will not reply, but you don't ping me here. Thank you. assume good faith and take it easy. --Human3015 knock knock • 00:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

IDK if you have a second but this guy at Dvārakā keeps adding the Bhagavad Gita onto the page and I've reverted him twice already. He also removed the references tag. Ogress _smash! 02:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll take an impartial look.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

When have I ever assumed you'd do anything other than? I value your prickly analysis because you don't agree with me. ... that being said, in this case I'm pretty sure you're going to find "replacing the reference tag with a raw link to a translation of the Bhagavad Gita and infodumping sections of that scripture onto the page" objectionable. Ogress _smash! 07:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"I value your prickly analysis because you don't agree with me" - very nice! I like that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi VictoriaGrayson,

You recently reverted my edit on the Sam Harris BLP page. I was wondering if you could expand on your reasoning? The page was using a gigantic quote in a BLP which is fairly POV. Further, the section I edited was badly structured. You're stated reasoning was that I was removing good faith material. I believe I added good faith material, and made the article much easier to read. I understand if you took umbrage with a few of my edits but to revert its entirety I believe is going to far.

Feel free to write back to me on my wall or in the section I opened regarding the smaller edit I made earlier on the Sam Harris talk page(or right here!).

YshuDS (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant. We seem to agree, even though from different points of view. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I know this is kind of impertinent but I can't email you so I have to put it here. (You can delete this and email me.) I was startled to find you supporting Malhotra, VG: you are usually so gruellingly hardcore about authors and scholarship, and Malhotra is politician and muckracker, not scholar (although he presents himself as one). Especially given your strong philosophical leanings, I'd've imagined you'd have ranked him about a "glorified Glenn Beck" and dismissed him. Then again, I am essentially (more or less and definitely usually passing) white and involved in the Ismaili and pre-Mahayana and Northeast Asian Buddhist communities and you might be part of an ethnic or cultural community that has a different view of things. Feel free to not answer, or even better to email me privately (I have an account-linked email you can reach me at with a throwaway account). I just wanted to say I was really surprised. Like, floored. So I finally decided just to ask. (Excuse my presumption.) To be clear: as a social anarchist, womanist, descendant of PoC and non-Christian who is in a borderland region, I'm no fan of most of his critics; I just think he's kind of ignorant, doesn't know what he's talking about but talks about it a ton, and is one of those sociopathic self-important political types who are sometimes necessary but always really unpleasant, unreliable and basically harmful. Ogress _smash! 22:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, you should look into how Hinduism is portrayed in American school textbooks. They even had a picture of a Muslim man captioned as a Brahmin priest. Despite such obvious and clear errors, western scholars denounced objectors as Hindutva etc. This is still going on. See this recent article and recent youtube video.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm super aware of the thunderously racist way the US treats pretty much all people of color - for heaven's sake, Arizona made Chicano studies illegal. That doesn't really explain why you support what seems to me to be really terrible "scholarship". I hope that was crystal clear that I oppose and/or directly suffer from bad scholarship by the racist, colonialist history of the US. But it doesn't explain why you support a man who is, again, kind of like Glenn Beck in terms of reliable scholarship. You are usually very critical of authors. There are many scholars who support, say, Muslim anticolonialism in the West who I utterly repudiate as being ruined, horrible, political monsters (like, basically, all of them?). I mean, again, you don't have to answer, but you didn't really actually answer me above, you just said "the West is really awful". I'm pretty sure I established that when asking my question. I got Sikh, Hindu, Sunni and Twelver and other peeps, it's not like I disagree with you. Texas' edu board is so unbalanced it'll need to be entirely women of color for the next 100 years to fix it - their latest history textbook doesn't even cover American colonialism or slavery. I got it. But Malhotra, girl. Malhotra. I still don't see it. He stands up for Hindus? I mean, like Tariq Ramadan stands up for Muslims, but I wouldn't put him out if he was on fire (except out of the principle of nonviolence): he's a racist, sexist, anti-semitic pig and he doesn't deserve my support just because he happens to be aligned with me in some ways. Ogress _smash! 00:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

And indologists formed a coalition to oppose changes to such textbooks. I think its indisputable that Rajiv is the main person who stands up against indologists.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW (if I may comment), I agree. As someone who is concerned about the misrepresentation of Hinduism in the west, I continue to be amazed at how few people are trying to correct this problem. I think it's an important skill for WP and elsewhere to recognize that trying to ensure balanced coverage of a very flawed individual such as Malhotra doesn't amount to "supporting him" in all his actions. Please don't insist on conflating those. If we only gave balanced coverage to perfect people, we'd have a very poor encyclopedia. Please forgive me for intruding. Regards --Presearch (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting article you linked to, and a pretty stupid textbook-text indeed. It made me wonder what I think about Hinduism, and caste definitely is not the first thing that comes to my mind, nor the second or third. Complexity comes to my mind. If I had to "explain" Hinduism to my daughter, I'd probbaly start with "It's a term for a collection of (intertwined) religions which are practiced in India." And then I'd be specific; I guess like "The main denominations/Gods are Shiva and Vishnu" - my, I don't know. Luckily my daughter is open to nuance, and she's curious; she might say "Daddy, they are doing meditation too, don't they, just like you?" (To which I should reply, "No, I'm doing meditation, just like (some of) them.") Or I would tell her of a friend of mine, a Catholic-born westerner, who became a pandit (or so he says) with the Arya Samaj. Anyway, my association with Hinduism is "colourfull, inclusive, rich, tolerant." Also to mention: there's a large Hindu-community in the Netherlands, over 100,000 people (on a total of 17 million dutch); I used to know quite some Hindus. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I just started reading Indra's Net (at Google Books); he really is concerned about Christian missionaries, isn't he? "Thus, one is made to feel that one loses nothing by abandoning Hinduism other thn the term itself." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Breaking India is his best book.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

JJ, how would you explain to your child the fact that physicists use both particle and wave metaphors to understand light? Would you say that particle studies and light studies are "two intertwined fields of natural science" that are practiced in modern society (if so, you should familiarize yourself with how these fields, contenders in 1900, have been integrated)? Note that what you call the "denominations" of Shaivism and Vaishnavism are so intertwined that their shrines are frequently built as part of the same building or building complex, and this is not viewed as remarkable (for example, this is not commented upon in our article at Dakshineswar Kali Temple, nor do I recollect that it was found unusual or surprising when built in 1855). It would be interesting to know how far back in time this architectural "intertwining" goes (anybody know references?).

Evidence for deep "intertwining" appears on virtually every level -- scriptures where Shiva and Vishnu (or Vishnu's incarnations) each on occasion extoll the other as a representation of the supreme; philosophies about the nature of the ishta as different paths to the same realization; families where members have different ishtas, without trouble. I think the intertwining is much deeper and far-reaching than what you'd find between Baptists and Methodists, much less Baptists and Catholics. In many circles -- such as families that contain members with different ishtas -- the claim that these are different religions that do not belong to a larger encompassing tradition would have a hard time passing the laugh test, just as the notion that Franciscans and Dominicans are separate denominations would have a hard time passing a laugh test among Catholics.

Of course, just as the human weaknesses of bigotry and chauvanism may sometimes attach themselves to a religious "order", they may sometimes attach to different ishtas, but that does not mean that these are not validly recognized by cooler heads as part of one integrated religion, one deeply but not perfectly integrated tradition. But because of the lack of Indians in their ranks, few Indologists have had an on-the-ground insider familiarity with Hinduism. In that respect, academic Hindu Studies has been handicapped in comparison to studies of virtually any other major religious tradition, where the laugh test correctives have been more readily accessible. --Presearch (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"would have a hard time passing the laugh test" - hmmm, that's too much! I didn't say "the claim that these are different religions that do not belong to a larger encompassing tradition", I said "It's a term for a collection of (intertwined) religions." Be carefull in how you respond; your response suggests that I made the first statement, instead of the second.

Anyway, in Holland we've had famous schisms in small denominations, splitting families into two. But... I've also seen crude examples of 'Indian schisms' here at the talkpages of Wikipedia: Vedists versus Tamils et cetera. And you can't deny that there are also great differences in the historical trajectories of those various "denominations," or "traditions," or whichever convenient label we try to use. It's not without reason that I also made clear, somehow, that I don't really know how to explain "Hinduism" to my daughter. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you believe there exists various Hindu denominations that have different temples? Maybe only Hare Krishna and Swaminarayan cults have their own temples. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh Vic, please! I really have no idea. I don't have any "mental image" with Hindu temples, except for a few photographs from Wikipedia. I really don't know. What I do know from Hindus in the Netherlands is that they incorporate various godheads in their worship. I don't know.

The point may be, that there is a difference between "historical religion" and "contemporary religion." Anthropological research instead of textual would be very welcome, wouldn't it? Some scholars have also noted that, and try to incorporate anthropological research, like this book The Hidden Lives of Brahman. Mind you, I live in Holland, I've never been to India, so my knowledge of "Hinduism" is limited to what I know from books. All the best, to both of you, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm no topic expert either, but I've been reading about a Tantric goddess, Matangi, who is one of the ten Mahavidyas. She is said to be recognized by other names in different areas, such as Meenakshi at the Meenakshi Amman Temple, where she is believed to have manifested herself in that form. So the goddess Meenakshi is worshiped as Matangi there at the temple. Matangi has also been recognized as the Tantric-Saraswati, or the Tantric-Ganesha (Uchchhishta Ganapati, as a sort of male consort).

Not to make this any easier, Matangi is also worshiped during the ninth day of Navratri, Maha Navami Durga Puja", being associated to Durga. In other words, plenty of associations exist. And when it comes to the Meenakshi Amman Temple, several deities are worshiped there. Indeed, the subject is the most fascinating :-P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan -- your lack of direct experience of Hinduism, which you candidly and freely and commendably reveal, is just the point: you cannot personally evaluate claims about contemporary Hinduism by comparing them with the common sense provided by your daily experience of Hinduism, since you have none (except perhaps a small bit vicariously through Hindu friends in the Netherlands). That's essentially what I meant by a "laugh test" -- the test provided by comparing with common sense. What has been exceptional about Hinduism Studies, in contrast to religious studies of almost any other major religious tradition, is that extremely few Indologists have had direct access to the "laugh test", i.e., direct access to the common sense provided by actual insider experience of Hinduism. (Rambachan is one of the main exceptions that comes to mind, and even he grew up in a western hemisphere diaspora). I'm not saying that such insider experience is infallible -- far from it, especially with regard to historical questions. But a muting of common sense (the inaccessibility of a "laugh test") makes it possible for other types of absurd misinterpretations to gain and maintain influence, especially if someone has a vested interest (religious or geopolitical) in promoting a particular misinterpretation.

What is so dispiriting at times about Malhotra is the ease with which he has been ready to confidently allege nefarious motives among any individual who disagrees with him, rather than showing a real-time recognition of the mixture of motives and influences at work. Religious and geopolitical influences may well be at work (I haven't read his Breaking India book, but I've read anthropology papers saying it was common knowledge that many anthropologists had been recruited by intelligence agencies). Less nefariously but still mistakenly, many scholars may be simply deluded by Indological "group-think" (perhaps abetted by a hidden geopolitical thumb on the scale), uncorrected by the common sense provided by insider lived experience. And misunderstanding of the present provides a distorted lense that can be read back into the past. For the fullest and most accurate acoounts, we need to be able to weave together the truths offered by both perspectives. But perhaps some parties have an interest in polarization. If we admit this possibility, then I would say: Do not blame it all on Malhotra's camp, one doesn't need to be a genius to see that there are interests on both sides who might prefer polarization.--Presearch (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vic. Shall I install MiszaBot at your talkpage, for automatic archivation? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added MiszaBot. Threads will be archived 7 days after the last edit; minimal 1 thread will be left. I figured you'd like the minimalist configuration. Within 24 hours, MiszaBot will start working for you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You know me well.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It works! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep watching the page; I expect a response by 81~14. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

€60... Sigh; above my budget. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

What about Nagarjunas Reason Sixty?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 11:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Better. The toot-text can be found at the web. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Loizzo's book is better. Also did you ever read "Establishing Appearances As Divine"? Of course none of these books are ever perfect.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:29, 12 August 2015 (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 Rape statistics 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) 00:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• VictoriaGrayson, you performed these edits but did not leave any edit summary. With your experience, I don't need to tell you the importance of the summary. I reverted the changes - which was reverted by you citing "Deletion af academic sources". What exactly does that mean and how do you justify your edits? I am going to revert your edits and should you have any objections; please take it to the article talkpage and discus the deletion before you carry out any further edits. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.' Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) ' 18:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You should not edit the article anymore for a while. Use the talk page and discuss the edits. Try to come to a consensus what the article should say. If you can't consider asking for a third opinion. -- GB fan 19:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "2002 Gujarat Riots". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 September 2015.

The request for formal mediation concerning 2002 Gujarat Riots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hi Vic; I purchased a copy yesterday at a New Age bookstore in Amsterdam, to my great surprise. Great book! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Basically he created a novel system based on tantric Kalachakra literature, as well as sutric literature.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "2002 Gujarat Riots 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 September 2015.

VG, do you have access to JSTOR? (since I already have access, I am not asking for myself; if yes, I can point you to an article of possible interest) Thanks --Presearch (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I recently lost access..VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Listen, I keep getting in trouble for making page moves or suggesting them. Can you please consider voting on Talk:Ksitigarbha#Requested move 15 September 2015 and Talk:Manjusri#Requested move 15 September 2015? People get annoyed about IAST titles, but when I move pages from incorrect romanisations to WP:COMMONNAME according to our Indic MOS, they also complain I didn't use a "move discussion" (to move pages according to our MOS!) - but then literally no one votes on move discussions. Ogress 19:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please let me know when you find a university textbook or encyclopedia that says many scholars consider historical-Jesus methodology to be invalid. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The historicity of Jesus... That's a hopeless topic, Vic. Personally I don't believe that he existed - which is a meaningless statement in itself, because if he didn't exist, we also can't talk about "he." Maybe there was a concrete person at the origins of Christianity. Maybe there wasn't. If there was, it wasn't "Jesus" - "Jesus" is a fictional character, not the supposed "he" at the origin of Christianity. We simply don't know who this hypothetical "he" was. But that's just my opinion, of course, which is not backed by theologians. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The request for formal mediation concerning 2002 Gujarat Riots 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

You asked for advice from an admin, I am an admin so here is my advice. Please do not use an RfA to engage in a personal dispute[3]. If you wish to discuss User:Moonsells behaviour you can do it on your talk page, their talk page or if you really think it is a problem take it to one of the noticeboards.

It is however not acceptable for you to engage in such complaints in an unrelated forum like someone's RfA. I hope you understand why this is important. Chillum 05:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please desist from restoring content sourced to Sonnenfeld at Carly Fiorina. There is a discussion regarding his reliability as a source. Per WP:BLP, the burden of proof for establishing the reliability of sources for adding content resides with the editor restoring it. ThanksCFredkin (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@CFredkin: I believe I have a very good understanding of WP:BLP, via various articles such as 14th Dalai Lama.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree strongly with CFredkin, who is quite correct -- you should desist, please, from your non-constructive multiple attempts to restore content sourced to Sonnenfeld at Carly Fiorina! While I won't try to dispute your contention that you have "a very good understanding of WP:BLP", you seem to have missed the fact that Wikipedia BLP policy does put the burden of proof for the reliability of a source for adding content upon the editor (you) adding it or wanting to restore it. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.CFredkin (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Vic: breath in, breath out. Stay cool. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry. I know about 3rr.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For calling it as it is. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My user access levels, which do not include administrator, may be found here [4]. NE Ent 02:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Stumbled across this today, may be useful to you: [5] Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You and your sunyata...

Okay, how about this explanation, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nagarjuna:

"In Buddhist philosophical thought preceding Nāgārjuna we find the distinction between primary existents (dravyasat) and secondary existents (prajñaptisat). Primary existents constitute the objective and irreducible constituents of the world out there while secondary existents depend on our conceptual and linguistic practices. Some Buddhist schools would hold that only atomic moments of consciousness are really real whereas everything else, including shoes and ships and sealing-wax is a mere aggregate of such moments constructed by our conceptualizing mind. According to this theory the entire world around us would be relegated to the status of mere secondary existents, apart from the moments of consciousness which are primary existents. In this context svabhāva is equated with primary existennce and denotes a specific ontological status: to exist with svabhāva means to be part of the basic furniture of the world, independent of anything else that also happens to exist. Such objects provide the ontological rock-bottom on which the diverse world of phenomena rests. They provide the end-point of a chain of ontological dependence relations. Nāgārjuna argues, however, that there is no such end-point."

Does this explanation satisfy you? Bets regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Any explanation that lacks anutpada / nonarising is just perpetuating Tsongkhapa's view, or at least the western interpretation of Tsongkhapa's view.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

'You and Tsongkhapa...' I do get your point, I think. Nevertheless, I'd like to ask you how you would formulate a "definition" or description of sunyata. And what does anutpada mean to you? And does it, for you, also refer to some "transcendental" "All"? Or is it's main implication that no fixed grip, or concept, or idea, of "reality" can be maintained? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sunyata is anutpada / nonarising.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You could write a classical Indian Sutra-text: concise, concise, and even more concise. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Cpt.a.haddock. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Padmasambhava#The_obscure_sorcerer that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars, haddock. Particularly when your own behavior doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Maybe you want to take look at the edit war at Padmasambhava. He keeps inserting a poorly sourced section.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not knowledgeable enough on the topic to assess that, but will take your word for it. My thoughts are that there is some need to make that article a little more comprehensible to the layperson, so maybe the thing to do is to rework the phrasing a bit but take the sources to the talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: This Cpt.a.haddock clearly has WP:COMPETENCE issues.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the topic to assess the contributions, but I do know that WP:BRD emphasizes the "discuss" part. And Discussion isn't happening, in spite of your attempts to do so. That said, I will suggest that the article could be written in a little more of a style for the layperson... Montanabw^(talk) 01:28, 12 October 2015 (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 Kelsang Gyatso 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) 00:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

What are you doing? I didn't finish editing. can you please wait a second before reverting. Read the explanation. Bodhadeepika (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bodhadeepika is okay. He's a nice chap, with a good insight. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I already had the feeling that somehow this wasn't correct... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you were already getting me upset... Isn't this one of the great feutures of Wikipedia: everybody is watching everybody? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Vic, you're somewhat acquainted with the topic of demons & spirits, therefor please your thoughts: Ramana Maharshi, after his "death-experience," at first thought that he was possessed by a spirit. He felt the presense of a "current" or "force," which he took to be his real self. In later life, he became acquainted with Vedantic literature, and recognised his "death-experience" as the "intuition of the enlightened." Devotees came to him for darshan, which he regarded to be his task in life. He was regarded to be Dakshinamurti, an incarnation of Shiva. According to Alan Edwards, the presentation of Ramana Maharshi was an "elite construction." This is in line with Sanskritization. Now, read this quote:

"Encyclopedia of Hinduism, "Possession is an important aspect of local religious practice, being the pivotal ... Possession is also a prominent feature of local worship in Tamil Nadu, and the term for it, iranku, means to 'descend'. The person on which the deity is thought to have descended is then referred to as a camyati, or 'god-dancer' (Diehl 1956: 177)"

"The person on which the deity is thought to have descended"... Talking about contexts and framing. It may be that Ramana Maharshi should primarily be understood in the context of Tamil folk religion, and that this aspect of "spirit possession," and the shamanistic aspect of the holy man as the intermediair with the gods, is completely neglcted or overlooked in the western understanding of Ramana Maharshi. What do you think? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't know much of Ramana Maharishi. In general Ramana Maharishi was unknown to most people before the internet.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I ~first read about him in 1988, when I started my "search." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Your search should end in Throma Nagmo empowerment from Dudjom Tersar. Its the one cycle in Tibetan Buddhism that has everything: Chod, creation, completion and thogal. I haven't received it, but I know about it. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please be mindful.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Annoying as it is, it's always best to walk away when there are dogged POV edits that keep getting re-inserted. On an article such as Fiorina, there are plenty of other editors watching, so eventually the right content usually wins out. The POV editors show their spots, and at some point the community deals with it. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have this book. He has a lot of interesting lectures on Youtube.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Watch out people! Buddha might be next! - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Vajrayana is based on the teachings of the Indian Mahasiddhas, not Buddha. So it wouldn't matter.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I once had a discussion with an editor who argued that Gautama's "enlightenment-experience" was caused by psychedelic intoxicants from fermented rice, or something like that. No clue of textual criticism, nor of prajna! But yes, there are also arguments that Gautama never existed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Buddhadharma is primordial. For example, everyone sees seated Buddhas in the visions of thogal.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Vic. Cool down. Writing in capitals may be a sign that you're losing your temper. You may be totally right, surrounded by an ocean of non-understanding, but in the end you'll be at the losing end when your temper takes charge. Take care, and best regards, as usual. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... May you experience homecoming of joy. Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. --Ekabhishektalk 06:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy Diwali to you!
Hadn't sent you the message because maybe we haven't interacted before. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

You are refusing to have a discussion. When you remove a source that's been on the articles static state. If someone disputes it. The static state gets prescience during the discussion. BTW, Brookings doesn't qualify for self published. It's not a blog.

Do not revert it again. I will report you for edit warring. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2011/01/26/house-section/article/H503-1

http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/17/yemen.islam

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-obamas-migrants

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-upping-aid-to-syrian-rebels-by-123-million/

Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You know your opposite votes for these two articles seems pretty odd. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a second look.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

If you are interested in a quick "info" thing as far as editors - there are some scripts you can add which show you a bunch of info at the top of user and user talk pages. For example - when I click on your user page or talk page - at the very top I see this:

• Registered 1/8/2014; 5167 edits; reviewer, autoconfirmed
• A reviewer, 1 year 10 months old, with 5,167 edits. Last edited 31 minutes ago. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

User Liz recently showed me a new one, and it's likely either one of us would help you get that installed if you're interested. — Ched :  ?  21:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I am. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi VictoriaGrayson. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's getting crowded at your userpage... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

please be so kind to provide a reliable source, in addition to removing info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Advaita Vedanta 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 portrays the traditions of the rules on dharma, especially those of lawful virtuous persons.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays and a Prosperous 2016!!!

Hello VictoriaGrayson, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this holiday season. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user happy holidays and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for New Year 2016. Happy editing, - Cwobeel (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season,

and all best wishes for the New Year!

JimRenge (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

	Wishing you a Charlie Brown Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)    –

Happy New Year!

VictoriaGrayson,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 10:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Re your edit in History of India it is not at all clear where the reference to Shrauta sacrifices comes from since they are not mentioned before (the decline) and since the article on the practice doesn't mention sacrifices (though it lists various sacrifices in the See Also section). Would it be possible for you to clarify this by including something that indicates the role played by these rituals before the decline and/or elaborating in the related article? Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 23:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Srauta sacrifices are just the rituals of the Vedas. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you clarify that in the article? It would be helpful to the reader. --regentspark (comment) 01:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Changed it to "Vedic". I think it is good enough, but we can wait and see if anybody complains. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: He is talking about a different article.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nalanda. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
There's an ongoing discussion in the talk page. Discuss and gain consensus first. Reading up on WP:BRD might also prove useful. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I spent half an hour fixing the multiple reference errors on Dorje Shugden controversy. If you'd like to restore the lengthy quotations in the ref section (which are completely unnecessary as the sources are accessible), please go ahead. But by simply reverting my edits, you're reintroducing all the referencing errors I fixed (scroll down the page to see the big red warnings). That's utter disrespect of other people's work. -Zanhe (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A user has been edit warring with me just for spite on the History of Buddhism. The individual was not even involved in this article, but decided to revert all my edits. this map has nothing to do with this article. The map is regarding the conflict between the Greeks and Sungas. Plus, that map is not even used in the Indo-Greek article. The map is clearly disputed and embellished. In addition, the map is about conflict, not religion or religious conflict. Someone please help. (2600:1001:B027:FF78:F1AA:964F:8E14:3D7 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC))

I am looking for some secrets of the world's end or the end of humanity which is r APT97 (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Two three weeks ago I went to the bhramkumari ashram near our town there I found that it is a ashram preparing people for the end & life after it, &there theories fits in many theories by all aspects. So I am researching on the knowledge our ancient peoples would have about it &found your name in many edits of arrivals so thought that you might help to find the right things in right time.

Will wait for your response. Thanking u for help. APT97 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Haha! I hadn't noticed you were editing too! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and information on Buddhist expansion map image. After careful reading I think you're right, I'll corrected the map right away. Cheers...  Gunkarta  talk  10:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha, read this: Instead, the author of books such as Indra’s Net: Defending Hinduism’s Philosophical Unity and the recently published Battle for Sanskrit used an unhelpful analogy: Indian social scientists are like dogs that are trained to stay within a perimeter with a tracking collar and electric shocks. [6]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Why You reverted this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kapalika&oldid=prev&diff=703353298 edits in Kapalika. Is better:

1. without art tittle in first line of text?
2. without name of Dyczkowski? Do you know Dyczkowski? All users of wikipedia knows Dyczkowski in Your opinion?
3. without marks of first citation?
4. with 3 times links to this same art Shaivism?

--Indu (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I know you; you're working yourself into a rage. No need to do so. Google gives plenty of links on "Hermenutics of suspicion"; let's work on this together. It looks interesting. Best regards, as always (and sorry for the little pangs), Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Your this edit on my talk page was just a harassment. You were blaming me for ownership of article and personal attack on you even though I never act like ownership on any article and not done any personal attack on you. You are kind of immature editor and you need to know some basic Wikipedia policies. You are maybe in your teenage years, but still it don't give you license to do immature editing. You have done same kind of disruptive edit on my talk page back in June without any reason. If you continue to post such messages on my talk page then I will report you to WP:ANI. Just because you are a teenage kid I am not reporting you, but I will not tolerate it if you do it again. Thank you. --Human3015 ^TALK  20:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

So, Rajiv Malhotra is a "ridiculous source"? The author quotes a tweet from Rajiv Malhotra:

"The Indian left has sold out to the American Right. Many of India's elite leftists at TISS are serving as sepoys for American Christianity.^[1]}}

See also RM's Twitter-account. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The article is full of blatant lies.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 07:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I put myself through the torture of watching the 1:30 hour video. I wasn't particularly impressed, either by the speaker or the audience. RM came across as a sensible guy, with a good understanding of the American society, a nice guy to invite for a dinner conversation, but not particularly academic. There was no depth anywhere, and he evaded all the questions (except the one on plagiarism). On plagiarism, I thought he defended himself well. But then the questioner hadn't done his homework. He should have read the Wikipedia. Like Ghatus says, the quality of the students doesn't seem very high. Neither of the journalists, who, according to RM, were surprised that he had referenced Nicholson 33 times in the book. (Obviously, neither he nor the journalists read the Wikipedia either.)

An interesting identification he made was between castes in India and lobby groups in the US. I thought it was curious but silly. Now I found it here.^[1] Interesting times! - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Western indologists are not academic. Do you know they still rely on partial translations made in the 1800's and early 1900's? Very few indologists have the ability to translate.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be a comment on Jaffrelot (who is definitely not an "indologist") I can guarantee you that his Hindi is a lot better than mine, and he is one of the few researchers of Hindu nationalism that reads and cites Panchjanya and Manthan. What we discovered about RM was that he was copying Nicholson's words from one place to another, from Shankara to Vivekananda or vice versa. Maybe he can read Sanskrit, but he certainly can't write English. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I am just making a general comment on indologists. For example "Tantra in Practice", an academic book, uses Arthur Avalon's partial translation of Kularnarva Tantra.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought you liked David Gordon White! How do you know he can't read Sanskrit (if that is the language you are talking about)? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I was just reading George L. Hart's brilliant essay on the relationship between Tamil and Sanskrit literature. I am sure he can read both the languages, and understand all their subtleties! - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

White is just the editor. Each chapter is written by someone different.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Every contributor may not have been an "Indologist." That term is out of date anyway. People specialize in a variety of disciplines, Asian Studies, Religious Studies, Literary Studies, Anthropology, History etc. There is no recognized discipline called "Indology," even though the rabble-rousers make it appear as if there is one. Look at what difference this particular "indologist" made! - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Indologist Gavin Flood uses "Indology" in Tantric Body published in 2006.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I notice that people continue to use it as a convenient short hand. But it is not a discipline. There are no departments of Indology or conferences or journals devoted to "Indology." In the US, there are "centres" for South Asian or Asian studies, which are places for people from different departments to get together and have joint seminars. They are geographical in focus, and generally not limited to India or Hinduism. Indians want to imagine that they are the focus of the world's attention. They are not. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

South Asia is essentially India.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to share your views here Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Planning_a_few_initiatives --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's not remove new sourced material. Let's correct it instead. I've started a discussion on the talk page. Skyerise (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agnicayana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andhra. 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) 10:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope you like coffe. At my part of the world, it's time for breakfast, so have a virtual cup of coffee with me. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indo-Aryan migration theory. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You know better than to edit war; Where is the source for your claims? Kautilya3 (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You may be interested in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hunting_in_pairs_by_Two_Editors. I need your support to expose their collaboration. Adiagr (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for creating TBfS page, I was trying for quite some time for the approval. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Battle_for_Sanskrit) HemaChandra88 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI for future reference, I have at least 200 people watchlisting my talk page ... which can be handy if I'm not around... ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 23:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, I don't favour one view or the other in the latest edits of this article, but just thought you might not be aware that your reversion of a reversion is not normal Wikipedia practice under their WP:BRD guidance. If an edit is reverted, the next step is to discuss on the talk page or we just end up with an WP:EDITWAR. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see my comment on the talk page of Rajiv Malhotra to understand rationale for changes. If you disagree with my view that many of the claims are subjective and fail to meet the neutrality requirement of a biographical article, please continue this dialogue with me here or on the talk page.

Manitobamoon (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, I would like to highlight that your latest (01:39, 30 April 2016‎ VictoriaGrayson) edit on the Rajiv Malhotra page is in danger of violating the three-revert rule of our community. Best practices dictate that disagreements such as this should be settled through open dialogue on the talk page to reach mutual agreement rather than just undoing previous edits. This is especially important when we are dealing with the controversial information contained in BLP pages, which could also be construed as vandalism. WP:BLPWP:3RR

Manitobamoon (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

the former article was full of sources and information, but the page has now been converted into a stub. the old article had succesfffully presented most of the perspectives buddhism has about metaphysics. now the article has been converted on "creator in buddhism" ,which is a simplistic title that leaves many of the complex ideas of the former article aside. the objective of the old wikipedia entry was to talk about buddhist perspectives about the whole spiritual context. the entries in wikipedia regarding "god" are present in all religions ,like hinduism. Notice im certainly not talking that buddhism has a personal god (it has not), but that buddhism believes that there are apects in the laws of the universe that deserve to be worshiped spiritually, hence there is some convergence between buddhism and other religions. the old wiki entry was better because it discussed lenghtly about what buddhism rejects regarding the impersonal idea of the divine, and what buddhism endorses. presenting solid sources for that purpose, the present article has now become a stub, being just restricted to the idea of the personal creator. however, the whole impersonal aspects , such as the trikaya and the dharmadhatu, are sadly no longer talked about in the article. very poor editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.79.253.92 (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Dearest Victoria, thank you for trying to improve the lead on the Buddhism article, however, I think you have removed a lot of valuable information from it, especially in the first and last paragraphs (regarding the Buddha's background and practices of Buddhism respectively). I would kindly suggest that you revert these edits. Best wishes, Stephen Karakashev (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the edit needed sources. It was kind of out of context and a bit confusing. Also, as a BLP it must be properly footnoted.  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 02:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

To avoid further reverts, I'm posting why I still don't believe that's important enough to be the second sentence of the article on the talk page for Buddhism.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Vic, please; here you go again. I don't feel like investing a lot of time in it this time. Please calm down. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I am calm. You and MSW don't seem willing to compromise at all.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a really disappointing response, Vic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Victoria, I was quite fascinated by your edits related to Buddhism. Can you please find and add some sources for the above website which is now being considered for deletion? Let me tell you that this website offers translations of Buddhist Scriptures in various languages and it deserves a Wikipedia page. Please help. With regards, Terabar (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You should know better than it include rumors about a person's sexual orientation and HIV status from a primary source EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Social justice warrior, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian conservatives. 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) 09:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Where on the talk page is your explanation of why you added a tag alleging strong pro-Stein bias in the article? I searched on the word "bias" on the talk page and found nothing regarding bias in that direction in the current article. 71.13.175.226 (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, VictoriaGrayson. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jill Stein.The discussion is about the topic Jill Stein. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.175.226 (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I am sorry to report that I have felt it necessary to include your name in a report related to Snooganssnoogans on the Edit Wars noticeboard with regard to the Jill Stein page. Nevertheless, I do hope for a peaceful resolution; but insofar as it was on your suggestion that s/he called for a full page-protect, it seems to me that the two of you are working together, based also on the talk page. Will edit with a direct link. SashiRolls (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You reently changed Early Buddhist schools to Mahāsāṃghika in the Template:Buddhist traditions timeline. As there were multiple concurrent early Buddhist schools, which are equally covered by the earlier link, I therefore reverted your edit. prat (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You prove again that you've got a keen mind, being able to make such changes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the RfA hasn't been transcluded yet, so !votes and comments cannot yet be added. I've reverted your vote, but you're welcome to re-add it if/when the RfA is transcluded. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Victoria. Please read WP:Advice for RfA voters. Also, considering your fairly recent membership in Wikipedia, your work appears to be already attracting some comment. Perhaps management and maintenance areas could wait a while until you have a little more experience. Happy editing!--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, VictoriaGrayson has been editing over 2-1/2 years and has over 7000 edits. VictoriaGrayson, you made a very strong accusation of bias against Vanamonde93. I highly recommend that you furnish solid evidence in the form of diffs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding: The request for evidence has been made at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Vanamonde93#VictoriaGrayson.27s_Oppose. -- Softlavender (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there is a reason why you deleted my edits to the Creator in Buddhism article? They are sourced directly from the Nikayas. (Javierfv1212 - Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu)

It is a good idea to read wikipedia articles such as WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB when you wonder why material gets deleted. Montanabw^(talk) 06:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Kali

added a link pointing to Tantric

Kapalika

added a link pointing to Tantric

Kulamārga

added a link pointing to Tantric

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shaktism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tantric. 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) 09:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vajrayana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tantric. 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) 12:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown, In ANI report you filed against me today, you said I am WP:NOTHERE. But, you are here to build an encyclopaedia. Why don't you do that instead of trying to provoke other editors ? I believe Victoria already knows about no personal attack, neutrality policy of Wikipedia. Googly Drive (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Its my responsibility to give them a notice before I report them at AE if they knew about this then my next step would be a report to AE as the accusation or speculation they made was a blatant violation of WP:ARBIPA. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

What is the point of that link? It's a year old. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, VictoriaGrayson. 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)

This article just moved into mainspace; needs infoboxes and such, maybe take a look and see if you think the topic is OK and not fringe: Jay L. Garfield. Montanabw^(talk) 19:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

This article just moved into mainspace; needs infoboxes and such, maybe take a look and see if you think the topic is OK and not fringe: Jay L. Garfield. Montanabw^(talk) 19:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I really don't agree with Garfield, but he is well known and well published.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your argument for reverting me ("See WP:ALLEGED. There is no criminal trial here.") is bogus, that guidance does not require a criminal trial for word alleged to be appropriate - go read it. There is common dictionary word "alleged", hello. And just how experienced editor are you anyway, adding as though true fact in WP's voice, especially in a BLP?? IHTS (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey IHTS, you are crossing a line with an attack like that. Focus on content in the article, not attacking other contributors. Montanabw^(talk) 06:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain what material in my recent edit of this article is objectionable so I can source it better, edit it, remove it etc? I honestly want to make this article better but you are being very unhelpful with your complete refusal to accept any material. Javierfv1212 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean you removed a quote by Peter Harvey who is a major source in the field of Buddhist studies. If that is not acceptable I am not sure what is. Your reason for removing all of the material was "Original research / Essay / Primary sources / Off topic" - Can you point out exactly which sections and which sources? Because this obviously does not apply to everything you reverted. I do not want to get into a back and forth here. Javierfv1212 (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have also reverted your addition to Gospel, just as Ulgarg did. A change to the lede of a major article, when reverted, should then be followed by some discussion and justification why the change is necessary. Ledes are often the result of much long-term wrangling and it is surprising that anyone would think they've had a new idea never thought of before. To revert Ulgarg's revert without discussion is disharmonious, by Wikipedia standards, yes?

In my edit summary I stated I thought that at the least your insertion was out-of-place. That it was a minor point, and undoubtedly covered elsewhere (perhaps Development of the New Testament canon), was not stated. Perhaps those are two points for your discussion.

Anyhoo, an edit to the lede or other important section, when challenged (as by a revert), burdens the initial editor with justifying 'why', again according to Wikipedia custom. Shenme (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Astonishing, those are two links I could have given you, but didn't, assuming you have been here long enough to have absorbed good practices here. Have you actually read WP:EDITCONSENSUS?

Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.

I'm reaching here, but are you saying because it hadn't been noticed, because it had remained in the article for weeks (over the holidays) without change, it had been hallowed?

All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) – either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the article talk page.

Yes?

Edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work.

Done and done, but not by you.

And WP:VNT does not say anything about importance, prominence, or why you must place a recent discovery in the lede. What process are you following here? Shenme (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serfdom in Tibet controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese. 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) 10:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I have softblocked the account. Thanks. El_C 17:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed a lesser form of protection, yes. Semi-protection prevents all Ips and non-autoconformed editors from editing the page. Pending changes needs the review. Lectonar (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

See our protection policy Lectonar (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lectonar: Can you change it to pending changes anyway? The policy says its great for BLPs, which the article is.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Brandon:...he was the protecting admin, and is still somewhat active. I for one would probably leave it at semi-protection, because the subject of the article is still very controversial. And while pending-changes is nice for BLPs, semi is even better. What would you hope to gain by a different, lesser sort of protection? And btw, I am watching this talk-page here, so no need to post it to my talk-page too. Lectonar (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There is 3 to 1 consensus, but one WP:SPA who is obsessed with the page for years is edit warring.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

To be honest: you confuse me (have you read the protection policy I linked to at all?); if you are talking about the lap-dancer story, then no form of protection except full protection would help, as all involved are long-time users. You need to use other forms of dispute resolution, including the edit-warring noticeboard etc. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Per RationalWiki, You may wish to create a new Jesus (archangel) article per RationalWiki (RW) - Category:Jesus. - 74.138.110.32 (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Your spurious edit has been reverted for a second time. If you believe this is in error please state your case clearly for discussion at Early Buddhist schools (plural). prat (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Would you care to take a look at the recent edits at Prasaṅgika? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Vic, do I understand correctly that in the Shentong-view emptiness is not (only) about the absence of an inherent self, but (also) about 'empty awareness', luminous mind, centreless awareness, I-less awareness, et cetera? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Center of the Sunlit Sky, p.446 (emphasis mine):

As for the question of whether there is a Shentong-Madhyamaka, both the Eighth Karmapa and Pawo Rinpoche give a very clear answer: “No!” They not only refute any realistic interpretation of what the word shentong might refer to, such as the notion of a permanent, intrinsically existing Buddha nature;1037 they simply consider this term a misnomer altogether. At the same time, the two systems of N›g›rjuna—the lineage of profound view—and Asaºga—the lineage of vast activity (to which the term “Shentong” usually refers) are clearly distinguished. When questioned, The Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche confirmed that it is indeed better to make a distinction in terms of the lineages of profound view and vast conduct than between some lineages of “Rangtong” and “Shentong,” since the former two are the clear lineages of transmission that can be traced back to India. Pawo Rinpoche explicitly explains that the final intention of these two systems is identical, while the Eighth Karmapa in his Chariot of the Tagbo Siddhas does so implicitly. 1038 Moreover, Pawo Rinpoche emphasizes that what Tibetans call “Mind Only” or “Mere Mentalism” is not the lineage of vast activity. 1039

The Shentong-article is not finished yet... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Two things you should point out:

• Shentong is a sutra system, not tantra. Dudjom Rinpoche clearly classifies Shentong as sutra in the Big Red Book.
• Rangtong is merely a strawman term used in Shentong writings.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

My recent edits to Eurycleia and Anointing of Jesus have been reverted by User:Katolophyromai. Would you please check the validity of my edits? Thanks, --Wkboonec (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Another edit reverted: Itinerarium Burdigalense. --Wkboonec (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference you reversion, I've asked for

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! A.j.roberts (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Caste system in India". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 December 2017.

The request for formal mediation concerning Caste system in India, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hello, VictoriaGrayson. 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)

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi - I think you will be interested in this lecture: Bon and Buddhism, Two Faces of the Same Coin? By Professor Per Kværne.
Best Regards.
Chris Fynn (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I recently opened a requested move on renaming Kshitigarbha to Kṣitigarbha over at the talk page and seeing that you participated in the previous discussion I was wondering if you could share your thoughts. Thanks! --DTM9025 (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, VictoriaGrayson. 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)

Hello VictoriaGrayson! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Hinduism

Hello, VictoriaGrayson. We would like to inform you about the recent changes to the WikiProject. We would like to introduce a newsletter to Wikiproject Hinduism. A newsletter is always help to inform recent changes in the project to project members and help for effective coordination. Now we have launched a new newsletter for the Wikiproject. As a member, you are cordially invited to subscribe to the newsletter. Also do not forget to contribute to the newsletter. Thank you!

Subscribe

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Contribute
• Subscribe/Unsubscribe
• Archive

---

Sent by Path slopu on behalf of WikiProject Hinduism. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)