User talk:Farang Rak Tham/Archive 2

2044:). Perhaps that would have been a better reference, but it didn't occur to me that way. The letter's content, and its author, are what make it important, not the sites on which it is published. I could reference it on another page, but I cannot imagine that the letter itself does not carry sufficient authority to be used as a referece. I would very much like to re-add the quote to the Trungpa Rinpoche page, as I do feel that it is significant to describe the singular place he, his teachings, and his lineage, hold in the expansion of Tibetan Buddhism in the West. Please let me know if you agree at this point, or if you feel there's something I'm not understanding. If you agree, or not, what are the next steps? Also, by the way, on the Trungpa Rinpoche page, I believe the quote of Diana Mukpo, his widow, is not the very best to use for that purpose, because of the source and because of the content of the quote. What do you think? Is it appropriate for me to remove that, or is there something I should do first? Many Thanks for your help. 2125:

All-Russian Musical Society. This organization has a rather strict regulations for its nominees (e.g. substantial national presence, competition prizes, and limit for 20 nominations per year). Bezuglov has newspaper coverage in Russian national newspapers, including Muzikalnoe Obozrenie, Vecherni Rostov, and Nashe Vremya, and Ukranian press in Vechernya Odessa. He has records available on almost any media-source, including Apple iTunes, Rhapsody, MediaNet, Amazon MP3, Spotify, Google Music Store, Slacker Radio, YouTube Music, Pandora, and others. Also he is a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles: besides Class&Jazz, he is associate concertmaster, assistant principal second and first violin member member in six professional symphony orchestras in US, members of American Federation of Musicians. The article has plenty of secondary independent sources, specifically in Russian and the artist's notability is established. Therefore, I decided to remove your tag. --

987:, apologies accepted. I am also sorry to slow in understanding you and the other editors, but this is the first and only alternative medicine article I ever wrote, and at first, i was not aware the policies for medicine articles were that different from other articles. We have the same aim in trying to upgrade the article and make it more encyclopedic, so I suggest we focus on that. I am reading up on Knowledge policy with regard to medicine, but am not familiar with the medical databases and sources, despite coming from a family of physicians, lol. So I am not sure whether I can be of much assistance from now on, but I'll take a look now and then to see what I can learn and check whether the article will be deleted, haha. Anyway, it is not my article of course, just like Knowledge is no-one's individual property. 1022: 3557: 31: 6443: 1739: 454:. Regarding the LA Times article request from the IP editors, I did include it just last week as an expansion to the reception section in the article (it is the Justin Chang review if you are interested). Separately, some good news on the peer review you requested since I was able to get to the library earlier today, and I should be able to type in the peer review before tomorrow morning. Then, I can start on your good comments on the film review page. 1808: 2904:; it's a work in progress but I'm finding it useful. At GA-level it's less useful because it points out things that are optional for GA, such as consistency in use of locations in citations, but it also does things like spot "p. 4-5" and "pp. 4". It works on sections with specific titles, so sometimes it marks up footnotes because they're titled "References". If you have suggestions for improving it, I'm sure Lingzhi would like to hear them. 5804: 5702: 4339: 4190: 3773: 3233: 3024: 2812: 2753: 2513: 2454: 920: 6047: 5909: 5513: 5425: 5319: 5231: 4713: 4597: 4471: 4383: 4234: 3914: 3466: 1217: 97: 4544: 4067: 4029: 3875: 5655: 5765: 5616: 4139: 3722: 3645: 3182: 2702: 2647: 2336: 2281: 2226: 869: 6265:, which I have recently nominated for "Good Article" status. You do not necessarily need to review it right now; I am in no particular rush, but, since your reviews are always so thorough and this is the article in the subject area of Mesopotamian mythology that receives the highest average number of page views, I thought it would be a good idea to ask you if you would consider reviewing it. -- 6326:, but it does not take into account the removal of pre-existing text and replacement with new text. Since I removed most of the text that was in the article before and replaced it with my own text, most of my contributions are not registered in that percentage. If you check the "authorship" percentage further down on the page, you will actually see that I wrote 2390:

indent, you're supposed to repeat exactly the sequence of colons and asterisks from the previous comment, and then put in your own colon (for an indent) or asterisk (for a bullet). So if you see "::" you should put "::*" or ":::". If you put "**" when the previous line was "::" it gets confused and gives you those two bullets. Just FYI.

1498:

primary sources, whether pro or con. Since China has over one billion inhabitants, and they're not going anywhere, chances are the current disruptive editing is just a start. So working on improving the articles and preferably getting at least one Dalai Lama article to GA level may still be the best way to deal with the situation.--

1783:, and I did defend the disputed text. With all due respect, but if there is no reliable source to support a statement that the book is fringe, then the WP article must be merged or deleted, in my opinion. Knowledge is a summary of mainstream scholarship and notable minority opinions, but only if the latter are designated as such.-- 1135:. Doucleff is not a reliable source for any science, let alone for being given prominence over WHO research results. If you don't understand this, and how FRINGE requires us to present scientific consensus, then please discuss it on the talk page. This is exactly they type of edit that falls under ArbCom sanctions. -- 350:. To be frank, I have not seen this movie yet. I have read the article, however. Furthermore, I have not done any GA reviews yet, but I did nominate an article for GA successfully, and contributed as the main contributor to a list of B-class articles. If you think I qualify, I am okay with starting the GA.-- 2003:

as praise or criticism, the quality of the sources becomes more important. You might try searching in encyclopedias instead, or on Google Scholar, whilst avoiding citing primary sources such as Trungpa himself. For example, Irons' Encyclopedia of Buddhism has an article about him. I hope this helps.--

2002:

policy gives preference to sources that are peer-reviewed or have much editorial oversight. This usually means scholarly publications or articles from well-established news outlets. The website Buddhist Door which you cite has little of such oversight. Especially when it comes to giving opinions such

1878:

Hi, I've seen that article before – it was published in the Huffington Post, but there is nothing in it about the topic of the article. I don't really think the article on the March is the appropriate place for it, since the topic of the article is really only the March and the background information

1516:

Well I don't think most Chinese people agree with their government on the Tibetan issue, most Chinese I met tend to be whether neutral or even pro-Tibet. Of course, Chinese migrants generally left their country because they were unhappy with the government on the first place. But indeed the amount of

1491:

As for the sockpuppet investigation, there's a list of articles that they're researching on the main page. It seems we're on a waiting list, and i don't know how long it takes. It should be noted, however, that most types of notices on user talk pages, as soon as they reach level 5 (e.i. 5 notices on

961:

I want to apologise for my terse and impatient responses to you. I'm glad we're making progress, but I think we're approaching the article from very different perspectives as editors, which could continue to result in more clashes between us. I personally don't think that we can make much progress on

2124:

The musician has been a winner of several notable chamber music competition as it is stated in the article (First prize at the Shostakovich Competition, Third prize at the Maria Yudina Competition in St. Petersburg and Third prize at the ICMEC competition in Boston). He is also the Honored Worker of

6002:

soon. I will probably be gathering information and writing in my sandbox for now. That page gets a lot of views, so I won't be adding anything until it's fairly complete. You're welcome to take a look at my sandbox if you so desire. Also, let me know if you have any ideas about the approach you are

4888:

I couldn't confirm it, looking at the coat of arms of Bremen which doesn't have it obviously. Certainly Bremen has a giant sculpture, - although the animals never reached their destination, living happily ever after in the forest ;) - Psalm 84: Concepts of Eternal Life are soooo different that even

2165:

Aside from her success in bring higher education to many people, Ms. Colson was among the first women to register to vote after the ratification of the 19th Amendment, and she was the first African American woman to become a lifetime member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored

1460:

Hi, I'm curious about something. I move normally on Spanish Knowledge, we have there a noticeboard to report violations to the Etiquette, and it's also forbiden to blank your own user talk page, among other stuffs. But I'm not as familiar with the English Knowledge. Do you know if such noticeboards

1315:

I don't want you seen as encouraging personal attacks against others, so reverted the comment. So how does that comment help improve the article in any manner? I'm trying to figure out how to write an RfC for the content dispute, but there's nothing to work from other than editors being upset about

572:

were appreciated, and I am placing the peer review for the film's possible enhancement towards future promotion. Separately, your comments on Kurosawa are in the article now and perhaps you could leave some comments about the Images included in the Kurosawa article as well on the review page there.

473:

article, all sources should be online, and if they're not, just let me know, and I'll find a way to send the sources as files to you. Unfortunately, many of the sources are in Thai language, so I don't expect you to check each source. Just reading the article and checking it for neutrality, clarity

965:

I have a standard approach to working on articles like this: Encouraging editors to find better sources. Finding agreement on the quality of the current sources. Determining how to best use the range of sources available. I've already started searching for better sources. Mduvekot has done a great

468:

Yes, I understand there was some POV-pushing and citing less reliable sources. Nevertheless, I feel too little leeway was given to some of the so-called vandals. Apparently, in the case of some editors, when the number of edits reaches the 10000s, so does their impatience. But past mistakes aside,

1926:

The article covers all the reasons for the march that were given by media sources in the background section. If you look at the references section, you will see that the article does use quite a few different sources already, including Turkish press sources. The article you suggested is not about

1386:

The very first comment on the article talk page outlines what needs to be done to improve the article: establish notability and find independent sources for verification and expansion. We've made progress on establishing notability enough that it will likely stand. The rest of the discussions are

6370:

The comment that I modified on the talk page was my own, not someone else's- at one point my signature used my name rather than my username, but it seems to be confusing some people so I changed it to match. No change to any content was made. You reverted me on the AfD page and deleted my entire

2389:

By the way, you may have noticed you have two bullets at the start of one of your posts on the GA; that's because of the way Knowledge does indentation. (I had to have someone explain this to me years ago, and I find even very experienced editors get it wrong, so I wanted to pass it along.) To

1356:

who removed it. Considering your edits at the Berzin article and Gokhale, your efforts to improve articles often appear destructive, even if you intend to follow WP policies. Considering the large editing experiences you have, if you want to make it to admin, I'd suggest you become a little less

517:

Thanks both for your beautiful work on the article. I'm usually not a fan of the GA-system, as I think it enables rather poor and lazy reviews, although I have to say, this was a pleasant surprise. Farang Rak Tham, your review was quite exceptionally thorough. I've undone the rubbing out of your

1497:

On a more personal note, though i do believe notices should be continuously given to disruptive users, we should also try to work on making the article more reliable and complete, showing both positive and negative sides of the subject. The articles on the Dalai Lamas still consist of too many

6655:

article, without providing any rationale what I did to violate any restrictions or why I should be warned. I don't see why it is required to bring it up each time. It is my right to revert your edits, if insufficient explanation has been provided by you. This right still holds, no matter what

492:

You were very prompt and I have typed in the peer review to get things started there. Separately, your concern for the IP-editor comments were of interest to me, especially since I have already added the LA Times article which they wanted to the article last week. Let me know if more material

992:

That said, I have doubts as to whether the subject of the article is really that much opposed to clinical trial and scientific scrutiny, it seems to me it is just merely a method that is very new and needs more time to get systematic and scientifically sound. I think it lacks the irrational

1820:

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.

243:

You are welcome. I still don't understand why the article had not been assessed before. I probably did not notice the politics going on. The assessment sounds interesting. Are you talking about a peer review or good article nomination? I have articles listed for both as well. On

6507:. This message is to notify you that 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. 1970:

It sounded like I didn't reference it properly...? I did see that it looked like there was a problem with the ref tag for the part I added, but I believe the reference itself was still available. If that's the issue, will you please help me to reference it properly?

560:@Farang Rak Tham; That was a fine effort for your first GA review and I think you may have a good feel for how to perhaps do more of them in the future. There are other films dealing with Buddhist themes and possibly you could look at some of them when time allows. 228:, or possibly if you have time to do the peer review following my nomination of this film on the review page there, then this might be a good time to list your comments and suggestions since I have some free time in this coming week for editing the article. 2039:

Thank you for your explanation. I believe you are mistaken about the nature of the reference. The Buddhist Door page referenced contains a letter written by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche. The letter was first published on his Facebook page here

1382:

article history. If someone wants to try to get the oversight removed, they need to go through the proper procedures to do so. Given what's already been attempted, I hope everyone can see that it is unlikely anything productive would come of

6139:

and given that it violated copyrights, your edit seems to have restored it. Be careful with what you restore, it is often misrepresentation of sources or copyright violation or even hoax, especially when the edit was made by socks.

2155:“Declining submission: A nice article on a notable subject but too closely synthesized”, so Jcc sees the notability of the subject. On 20 September 2017 This article was accepted from this draft on 20 September 2017 by reviewer 3810:

The first round of the WikiCup finished on 26 February. This GA was promoted on 27 February, so its points cannot be included in the first round and you will need to submit it again in the second round (when I have set it up).

5840: 715:

that i respond to this quite late, but I'm having some technical glitches that earlier prevented me from doing anything other than reverts, however odd that sounds. I'm happy to tweak the article through a good talk page

1900:, You are welcome. I would be interested to do a GA review, but I wonder if the article is broad enough. If you are able to read Turkish, you could consider expanding the article based on local news and scholarly sources.-- 450:

My own edits on the article only started about a month ago, which was after the page protection was put on the article last April. If it helps, this edit identifies the last edit before the page protection last April here:

323:

Sounds good. It generally takes me a least a day to do a peer review and I'll need at least a day to look some things up. If I understand correctly then the next step along with my peer review leads to your review of

6546:

Sorry you feel that way. I'm having a difficult time as seeing your responses as anything other than personal attacks directed at me. Perhaps we can focus on something else that we could use to improve the article?

1387:

attempts to find ways around the need for independent sources. From my perspective those discussions have gone nowhere, and strayed far from anything that looks like good faith attempts at improving the article. --

414:

Last April there was a good deal of disruptive editing and page protection was set after some IP accounts were trying to force material into the article and refused to start talk. The protection looks appropriate.

6584:

The message above is no threat, just an alert to give you clear warning about special editing restrictions. If there are other comments that I've written that you feel are threatening, I'm happy to refactor them.

2554:

How would you feel about me reviewing one or more of your other GA nominations? They're sitting at the end of the queue, so I know you've been waiting a while, but you might prefer to have a different reviewer.

3076:

page had photos of the standoff itself. I actually have several personal photos taken during the standoff that I have uploaded. Was wondering if you would find it suitable to upload a few to both of the pages.

5841: 222:. The director's interest in both Buddhism and Christianity are of interest to many readers. If you have any requests for any enhancements you might like to see brought into the article during peer review for 4932:. Neither the old nor the newer coat of arms depicts the 4 town musicians. When I did some research in German sources, I found that the Marcks bronze statue became a "Wahrzeichen" of Bremen - just like the 5859: 1423:

If the project is so concerned about the number of editors, then maybe they should actively educate their editors on policies and guidelines so these disputes are avoided. I don't do much other than use

962:

the article without finding better sources. My impression from you is that you perhaps don't understand the nature of the concerns of other editors, and want to quickly resolve all issues regardless.

399:, okay, I am working on it now. Will write a bit before saving. Meanwhile, I have noticed the large extent of vandalism before the article was protected. Do you know how this vandalism is motivated?-- 1832:. 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 302:

I am willing to help, but i'd like your help with a peer review article of my own as well. I don't think that evaluating each others articles for GA simultaneously is a good thing, but your input on

6196:. No one has reverted their edits. I always check what I am reverting and in this case, thousands of bytes had been added by both MonsterHunter32 and an IP who has a history of violating copyrights 6199:

and he has also violated copyrights on this article as well by copy pasting from different articles without making a proper attribution. Though that's not something for which I would warn him but

6371:

contribution, which included several sources that could be used for the article. It's fine to edit your own comment as you did, but don't remove contributions from other users to a discussion. --

6656:

restrictions apply. I consider bringing up these sanctions each time I edit as a form of inappropriate editing, and possibly tendentious. If you want me to be more careful, then so should you.--

1405:, I agree with all of that, and I understand the problems with copyright and primary sources in the article. Still, WikiProject Buddhism has only a tiny group of active editors, so we'd have to 993:

tendencies so characteristic of fringe theories, but proponents might be using the "language" of alternative disciplines now and then, which has in this case led it to get tagged for fringe.--

966:

deal on reviewing how the current sources are being used. I'd like to start a review of the quality of the sources, which we're missing at this point beyond a few comments on primary sources.

368:

whenever you are ready. You can list your article concerns for the film on the review page which will be linked automatically for you. Here is a representative film review if its useful here:

6561:

It's not meant personal, but informing someone many times of possible disciplinary measures on him, without real evidence of misbehavior, isn't the correct way of communicating on Knowledge,

6387: 3366:. The message shows up in the list, right next to the citation. There's a slightly different message that shows up in the footnote for the reverse error, when an sfn doesn't lead anywhere. 769:, there's been considerable discussion regarding the content you've tagged. Please check the article to see whether the tags still apply, or whether the tags should be removed or changed. -- 6435: 6215:. Given all these concerns and since I was pasting same edit summary on other articles, I pasted same edit summary on this article to indicate that I am reverting to a pre-sock version. 1848: 6667: 6201: 1655:

maxarchivesize =10T gives an archive of 10 threads, and then goes to the next archive. Quite inconvenient; better set it to a maximum size like 250k. Or archive per year, as I do:

1520:

But yes, the articles in general should be more neutral, both in the positive and negative things. I myself tried to do a counterbalance. For the rest, I take notice, thank you. --

5270: 4072: 3888: 1974:

If, instead, you feel that the reference is not relevant enough, or authoritative enough, then I would like to discuss this with you. I feel sure that it is worthy of inclusion.

3274:

I have "importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');" in my common.js, too; I thought Lingzhi's script expanded on that but I think perhaps you need both to see the harv errors.

1747: 6211: 2730: 1732: 1126: 588: 2784: 636: 2359: 2309: 1759: 6520: 4496: 5085:

They have a Nationallizenz project for German citizens but nothing like Persee. I have rarely found good sources about Buddhism in German. Researchers like Zimmermann,

4925: 3575: 3055: 2181:

In retrospect, I think you are right. However, the sources you are citing do little justice to the subject, and you should consider citing more substantial sources.--

1866: 6261:

Hello! You have done an excellent job reviewing my articles about ancient Mesopotamian mythology. I was wondering if you might be interested in reviewing my article

6176:

Indeed. I will not be jumping to any conclusions, but it would not be we the first time I see someone citing sockpuppetry investigations to further his own agenda.--

6086: 4756: 4636: 4549: 136: 6322:

Yes, I am familiar with all the sources used in the article. I actually wrote far more than just thirty-two percent of the article; that percentage is based on the

5893: 5880: 2725: 2190: 1486:. On the English Knowledge, it is not forbidden to blank your own user page, as the notices can be found in the page's history anyway. But archiving is recommended. 1144: 3868: 2854: 2843: 2175: 5662:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See 3570:, and a steady flow of other Good articles, for aspiring to even higher quality, for service in Dutch and Thai, for quoting "contribute, let go", - praising your 3264: 2544: 1118: 1098: 6466: 5733: 5686: 5639: 5464: 5066: 4936:

or the Bremer Dom. Unfortunately, reliable sources may contain errors; in this case the English speaking author may have mistaken Wahrzeichen for coat of arms.

4871: 4167: 3901: 3001: 2670: 2485: 2060: 1949: 1935: 1921: 1726: 778: 6355: 6344:

Okay, I believe you, no problem. Anyway, even if you wrote only a small part, it's familiarity with the sources that is essential to GA review, in my opinion.--

6339: 6317: 6294: 4221: 3205: 2304: 2030: 2012: 5280: 4269: 4042: 3689: 3383: 3357: 3337: 3311: 2989: 2971: 2936: 2889: 2612: 2590: 2425: 2378: 2249: 303: 5215: 5199: 5080: 5032: 4898: 4827: 4162: 3849:

I removed the submission yesterday and the bot should now have been through and adjusted the points. 210 points is correct for 6 GAs so I think it is now OK.

3612: 969:

I hope we can find a way to work together more smoothly, and would like to hear your thougths on how it has gone so far and what changes you'd like to see. --

5589: 4422: 4370: 4316: 4112: 3501: 3123: 2675: 1792: 1765:

Thank you for alerting other editors to this discussion. When I inspected the edit history I mistakenly concluded that you had introduced the disputed text.

582: 502: 487: 463: 445: 424: 380: 359: 337: 315: 297: 269: 6427: 6409: 6242: 6226: 6033: 3858: 3844: 3804: 5835: 5788: 3745: 3147: 2789: 1304: 201: 6187: 6105: