User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Jayaguru-Shishya! Thank you for your contributions. I am Aoidh and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 16:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Arhat (Buddhism) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Arhat (Buddhism) was changed by Jayaguru-Shishya (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.913283 on 2013-08-30T14:00:56+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Genre bickering:

Please stop your random biased genre bickering particularly on the stoner rock related bands and artists. It seems you're desperately removing them whether including or excluding sources. If you've got any problem please be patient, discuss on talk page and wait for a general consensus.--Shallowmead077 (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THE ENTRIES ON TALK PAGE"

Please show me the edit where I did this (hint: I didn't). You should check the talk page history [1] before you go shouting at other editors. Kaini (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Your recent editing history at Stoner rock shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Richard BB 18:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Richard BB, there is no on-going edit-warring. No more on my part than, for example Shallowmead077's part. There is a Wikipedia rule that entries made on talk pages should not be removed. However, certain writers do that after each single entry.

When it comes to articles, there are on-going discussions at the talk page, ones which the other contributors who keep reverting every single change refuse to attend to. Besides, they are involved in reverting as much as I do + 1, so please point your claiming finger equally to them.

Every single time I have removed some section, it's since there are no grounds ever so far for the claims represented; the sources do not make such statement they are referred to support even, the sources are completely unreliable, etc. It is not my part to proove that "God doesn't exist". If one makes a claim without sources, it is his/her obligation to prove it right, not the other way around. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd ask you to provide diffs of talk page posts being removed. Secondly, even if that has happened, it doesn't negate the fact you are edit warring. Finally, I think you need to read WP:BRD, which I have linked you too numerous times. All everyone else is doing is reverting to the status quo, while you are actively trying to change things. No one else is changing anything, they're just reverting to the version which last had consensus. If you have an issue you have to take it to the talk page first, and then alter it after you have consensus. So far, you do not have consensus. When multiple editors keep reverting you, it should be a clue that you're doing something wrong. Until your version is agreed upon, the old version stays: it's as simple as that. Now I'd ask you to stop edit warring and simply talk things out first. — Richard BB 23:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

He posted on my user page, not on my talk page. --Shallowmead077 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Richard BB, as I have told you numerous times: there is an on-going discussion at the talk page, one which you have not attended to. You just keep rudely reverting the edits even without discussing the changes at the talk pages.

So far, I have presented the very grounds for the changes I have made; it has been open for discussion at the talk pages; and it has not been opposed.

Therefore, stop reverting the edits and please participate the discussion at the talk pages if you should have any further doubts. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

And I have told you, these discussions need to end before you get your way. I have to repeat myself now: read WP:BRD. Because your edits are disputed, we revert to the status quo for the time being. If your edits weren't disputed, then we'd certainly allow your version. However, until we attain consensus, we do not accept your version. — Richard BB 19:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing sourced content

You don't get to arbitrarily declare sources as "invalid" just because you don't agree with the content. I suggest you stop removing sourced section without getting some sort of consensus on the talk page before removing any established content. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sabrebd. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Of the Heart, of the Soul and of the Cross: The Utopian Experience because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! SabreBD (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jayaguru-Shishya. You have new messages at :Talk:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy#Novels: So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hanbok 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:

• '''Hanbok''' (South Korea) or '''Chosŏn-ot''' (North Korea) is the traditional[Korean dress. It is often characterized by vibrant colors and simple lines without pockets.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Velvet Underground may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• * Nico]] – collaborator on vocals with the band on four tracks on ''The Velvet Underground & Nico''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hanbok

Please stop removing sourced content and add information that is contradictory to those reliable sources that you have removed. Finding reliable sources for additional information that you add is your burden, not others. Also, use the talk page to discuss relevant matters. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Cydevil38. I'm sorry but I did not mean to remove reliable source. However, I do find that the sources that I restored back to the article (I haven't discovered them in the first place) are reliable enough as well, and they are stating things different. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop following me to other articles and undoing my edits

Stop doing this and this. QuackGuru (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Mass original research in the lede

All the well sourced text in the lede was deleted. I think the sourced text should be restored not deleted. The current lede is poorly written. QuackGuru (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion at the appropriate Talk Page of the article (Talk: Chiropractic). There other contributors can follow the discussion and the grounds for your edits as well. I started there a new section where I quoted your post at my talk page. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not give you permission to move my comment to the talk page

I did not approve of this. QuackGuru (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what you originally wrote, and which was answered as such. Please do not change your original post that has already been commented at the Talk Page. It will distort the progress of conversation. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not originally post that comment to the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't really get your point. I am free to quote your post at the talk page too since 1) it pertains to the article, and 2) you made edits on the article and argumented those edits by your post. I moved it to the Talk Page because that's where it clearly belongs. Now the other contributors can also see the discussion about the sources and edits about the article. You are not trying to make edits behind other contributor's back, are you? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is pretty clear when it comes to moving fragment discussion to one location:

• Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums. This fragments discussion of the idea. Instead, start the discussion in one location, and, if needed, advertise that in other locations using a link. If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one location, and linking to it. Make sure you state clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices_for_all_talk_pages_used_for_collaboration)

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If you ever post a comment on an article talk and sign another editor's name again - as you did here - your editing privileges on Wikipedia will almost certainly be removed. You can delete other editors' posts from your talk page (but not refactor them); and you can quote the content of another editor's post elsewhere (with proper attribution); but you may not make a post that gives the impression that another editor made it. Please take this warning seriously - the community looks very unfavourably on deceptive editing. --RexxS (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No, my editing privileges on WIkipedia are just fine and the most certainly will not be removed. Don't be silly, my dear. Show me, where i have refactored anybody's posts? you may not make a post that gives the impression that another editor made it.? Too bad, I can take direct cites as much as I want. What on earth are you ranting about? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:QuackGuru_reported_by_User:Jayaguru-Shishya_.28Result:_.29 - It seems that [[User:Spike Wilbury|Spike Wilbury]] ([[User talk:Spike Wilbury|talk]]) already disagrees with you. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism?

I wrote "This was not my original post to this talk page. You moved my comment from your talk page here without my permission."QuackGuru (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You deleted a comment I made to the talk page. Please don't remove my comment again. QuackGuru (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please try to follow good manners while interacting with other contributors in Wikipedia. Your current editing style and behaviour is aggressive. Thanks. As you can read above and as you haven't even disagreed, it's quite obvious that the the discussions concerning the edits you have made on an article, belong to the article Talk Page. It seems that you are trying to make edits behind the other contributors' back. Please argument your edits to the other contributors of the article, not me individually. I will restore your post here now, and therefore consider the post at Talk:Chiropractic as a quote from you. Therefore, do not edit a direct quote given. You are vandalizing a Wikipedia's Talk Page at the moment. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You deleted my comment again. I am not interested. QuackGuru (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Point. QuackGuru (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Strike if you will, but do not misuse the Template:Collapse top {{Cot}}. {{Cot}} clearly says that:

The {{collapse top}} template (a.k.a. {{cot}}) and its paired template {{collapse bottom}} (or {{cob}}) are used for placing a collapse box around a talk page discussion, especially when the content contains complex wikimarkup such as tables. For very simple content, the one-piece template {{collapse}} can be used instead.

These templates should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Refactoring guideline; they should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing.

If I reverted your strikings as well, it has been an accident. However, do not try to hide end the discussion by using {{Cot}}. If you still keep vandalizing the article Talk:Chiropractic Talk Page and violating the Wikipedia Policies, I will have to report you. Please always respect other Wikipedia contributors and try acting nicely instead aggressively. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are deleting my comments without my permission after being told to stop. QuackGuru (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, just restoring the original quote of yours (whether quoted or moved as a fragment discussion). Comments you can add as separate posts, but do not alter the original ones. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you are right. My apologies. I mistakenly observed that you modified your old comment even you added a new one. Sorry for that, my mistake. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You deleted a diff I added and moved my comment. You added mass OR to the lede and deleted the tags without fixing the problems. In exactly what way is that a summary? Please revert your edits to the chiropractic page. I have replied to your report. QuackGuru (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This looks like an April Fools joke in mainspace. You claim His latest revert today makes it pretty hard to understand his claim that it is not about the sources. When we look at his latest revert, we can see that it is very well about the sources. However, the text you added to the lede is original research and failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

A complaint about your edits was filed per this 3RR report. In the closure of that report, both you and QuackGuru are warned of consequences if you continue edit warring on talk pages. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you because it is apparent to me that you are not here to contribute constructively. This is clearly not your first account, and you seem to have very little interest in Wikipedia besides edit-warring and engaging in disputes in a narrow area of interest. Your conduct since this was brought to your attention has simply suggested that you intend to carry on editing in the same manner. This block is indefinite, but if you can satisfy me or the community that you see the problem with your editing and will take steps to address them, it need not necessarily be infinite. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? , and thanks for your message. I admit that there has been generating a lot of heat in few articles of quite a narrow field. I'm sorry for that. I can assure you though, that this is my very first and only account in Wikipedia. If you look at my contribution history[2], you can see that I've been working mainly with wikilinks. These few articles make an exception to that, and I'd like to apologize you and the other editors involved about the inconvenience caused by my reverts in those articles.

I'd like to suggest that I'll keep my hands off from those articles now. This tangled skein has got woven around those articles, and I can assure you it doesn't represent my normal editing style. The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.WP:EW. I understand that now, my apologies. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I must say that I'm impressed that Jayaguru-Shishya has taken the time to gain a better understanding of how destructive edit-warring can be. I admit that I also thought that Jayaguru-Shishya had a previous account and I apologise for jumping to that conclusion. I wish I could persuade him to accept that it is a bad idea to re-post other editors' comments with their signature onto other pages (giving the wrong impression of who posted), but hopefully if he keeps clear of contentious areas for the moment, he won't feel the need to do that again.

@Jayaguru-Shishya: There is information on appealing blocks at Wikipedia:Appealing a block and Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks that may help.

@HJ Mitchell: Assuming in good faith that Jayaguru-Shishya is a relatively new editor, do his assurances above constitute sufficient reason to now lift his block, without the formality of an {{unblock}} templated request? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS. I admit that it was pretty immature of me to re-post your comments, and I'd like to apologize both you and QuackGuru for that. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jayaguru-Shishya (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have to admit that my reverting was pretty immature, and I understand now that the WP:3RR is not some allowed limit of reverts allowed to be made. What also irritated other editors - for perfectly understandable reason - was my re-posting of their comments from my user talk page to the article talk page. I have apologized both editors involved, and I understand not to do that in the future. My reverting happened at these very few articles (three?), and I can assure you that it doesn't represent my normal editing style. I must admit that there was a lot of heat generating, and I am sorry about that. There is discussion about the ban at my Talk Page[3] Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:09 am, Today (UTC+1)

Accept reason:

Fair enough. Please take extra care to avoid edit-warring, and please make an extra effort to remember that this is a collaborative project, requiring editors to be considerate of each other, especially in controversial topic areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that :) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Continuing same behaviour after being warning

After you were unblocked by User:HJ Mitchell, you restored the section where the editors did not make that comment on that talk page. It was originally made on your talk page. You said you were sorry for doing that but you did it again after you were warning. QuackGuru (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I reverted that immediately after it was done. My intention was just to untick the "Watch this page" box, but I accidentally ended up to a tab with an old edit page open (I have tens of tabs open at my browser). I reverted it immediately[4]. QuackGuru, I even apologized on your Talk Page[5], and asked if we are okey and can focus on editing the articles now[6]. I really hope we can do that. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You also deleted my comment too. I don't see how that was an accident. After I told you to stop following me to other articles you continued to follow me an undid my edits. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It was an old edit-box among my tens of tabs open. I reverted that immediately, and I apologized for that[7]. Here, I offered reconciliation at your Talk Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=603022741&oldid=603021528. Sure you have the right to just remove it, but I was kind of hoping you could accept it. QuackGuru, we both got warned. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jayaguru-Shishya_is_not_moving_on_and_he_is_continuing_his_battleground_behaviour. QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag

See Talk:Chiropractic#Tag restored against CON again. Editors objected to restoring the tag. QuackGuru (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Who objected? So far I could see only you. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I highly doubt you think I am the only editor who disagreed with the tag. Here is a few diffs.[8][9][10] Do you agree you won't restore the NPOV tag against consensus again? QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop making counterproductive edits at the acupuncture page

I told you to stop following me to other articles.[11] See User_talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive_1#Please_stop_following_me_to_other_articles_and_undoing_my_edits. See WP:HOUND.

Background information.

Jayaguru-Shishya was informed of the discretionary sanctions in early April of 2014. See User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive 1#Acupuncture is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:Requests for arbitration.2FPseudoscience.

There are issues with Jayaguru-Shishya editing a few alternative medicine articles.

Kshilts said in late March 2014 "I'll put together some references on efficacy and cost-effectiveness as you have asked."[12] Kshilts didn't who put together references for the lead. It was another editor with the screen name Jayaguru-Shishya. On April 1, 2014 Jayaguru-Shishya edited the chiropractic lead.[13] That text did not pass WP:V[14] yet he claimed the text is sourced using strong sources[15] He later said "I was trying to restore some contributions by Kshilts."[16]

Jayaguru-Shishya wrote in early April 2104 "I'd like to suggest that I'll keep my hands off from those articles now. This tangled skein has got woven around those articles, and I can assure you it doesn't represent my normal editing style."[17] He obviously did not keep his word.

Without fixing the problem, Jayaguru-Shishya deleted the tags rather than removing the primary source and accused QuackGuru of violating the 3RR rule where there was no 3RR violation.[18] Jayaguru-Shishya supported the proposal that was largely WP:OR and a poor summary of the article. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Comments. Jayaguru-Shishya also made a false 3RR report. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive245#User:QuackGuru reported by User:Jayaguru-Shishya .28Result: DvMT and Jayaguru-Shishya warned.29.

Administrator User:Ohnoitsjamie explained to Jayaguru-Shishya in early January 2014 that "You don't get to arbitrarily declare sources as "invalid" just because you don't agree with the content. I suggest you stop removing sourced section without getting some sort of consensus on the talk page before removing any established content."[19] Jayaguru-Shishya asserted he had consensus to delete the text at Traditional Chinese medicine[20] where there was no consensus in the first place.[21] Administrator User:Kww said "Your understanding of consensus is wrong."[22] Jayaguru-Shishya suggested on the talk page that there was consensus to delete the text.[23]

Jayaguru-Shishya said "I find Middle8's edits to improve this article. No complaints about those IMHO."[24] He also said "I still can't find any OR in Middle8's edits, and I have to disagree with QuackGuru here: I think the edits helped to improve the article."[25] Jayaguru-Shishya did not give a specific explanation for this revert to Middle's version. It was clearly explained that the text was presented out of content. See Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 13#Original research in the article again.

In yet another content dispute, Jayaguru-Shishya asserted that the deletion of the primary sources was "unexplained" and "seems like revertable edits."[26] The edit edit history beginning on 16:56, 17 July 2014‎ shows the reasons were explained.[27] See Talk:Acupuncture#Sourced text was deleted.

Jayaguru-Shishya restored disputed text without gaining consensus on July 24, 2014.[28] He asserted "I didn't add anything".[29] It was previously explained on July 23, 2014 there were problems with the restoring the edit.[30] He asserted "So far, sourced material was removed, as stated above."[31] See Talk:Chiropractic#Suggested changes. The number of WP:IDHTing on these alternative medicine articles is trying the patience of the community.

Current information.

You added largely duplication using primary/poor sources. Rather than use poor sources I replaced it with independent sources. In my edit summary I explained one of the sources failed verification. This was discussed on the talk page. The section for the US under International reception already states "Acupuncture is used at many places in the US, including Harvard, Stanford, and Yale." Independent sources were being used but you restored the text using a bunch primary sources. There is no need for duplication or a separate section. The text for each country can go into each specific section for each country in the Acupuncture#International reception section. Please stop adding poor/primary sources when better sources were found. Please don't continue to WP:BATTLE. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, the edit has been discussed at the article Talk Page. So far, it seems you are the only editor who has problem with the text. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I provided this diff above and there is no need for separate sections. See Acupuncture#Reception. QuackGuru (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the article, I'd advise you to participate the discussion at Talk:Acupuncture. By the way, your accusation about "following you to other articles" has been noticed. This is not the first time when you are making this accusation. You haven't provided any evidence for your claim even I have asked that multiple times earlier. Seems like a personal attack to me. You are also talking about me in 3rd person above which raises a question, "to whom are you addressing your post?" Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=623740257

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=622502699&oldid=622397874

You latest edits to both Acupuncture and Traditional Chinese medicine were to undo my edits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=602763537

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=next&oldid=602766281

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=602763527&oldid=602679633

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=next&oldid=602766861

You first two edits to both Acupuncture and Traditional Chinese medicine were to undo my edits. I provided you evidence that you are intentionally undoing my edits. QuackGuru (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So what's the problem with the first two edits? Both have been discussed at the article Talk Pages and both are supported by an edit summary. The last four diffs, aren't those connected to the EW-case of 4th April? When it comes to undoing one's edits, I will undo your edits if there is reason to do so. Similarly, I will restore your edits if they have been groundlessly removed. And the same applies to all the editors, not just you.

Anyway, you have accused me of "following you to other articles". You have failed to provide any evidence to support your accusation. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You wrote "When it comes to undoing one's edits, I will undo your edits if there is reason to do so."[32] You are continuing to think about reverting my edits and you have made numerous reverts of my edits. You don't think it is a problem with your continued reverts.

I already explained the problems with your edits. For example, there is original research in the article using a primary source. You were not editing Acupuncture or Traditional Chinese medicine before April. After the dispute at chiropractic, you showed up at the other pages I was editing. How did you find Acupuncture and Traditional Chinese medicine? Are you denying you didn't look at both articles by looking through my edits and then undoing them without a valid reason?[33][34][35][36] QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If you have a specific edit you'd like to discuss, please let me know. So far, you have said that "there is original research in the article using a primary source", and you are giving me a diff where QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV says at the Talk Page that "even Wikipedia has a separate article on Auriculotherapy". I am sorry, I don't really see the connection here? The last four diffs, I checked and those are part of the 4th April EW-case. It's been closed, though, nearly half a year already.

How come I feel like you have brought up the same claims earlier at Jmh649's Talk Page? Let's see... You said that: "... How did you find that article? You followed me to that article. I previously told you to stop following me to the acupuncture and TCM pages. QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)". I answered: "Dear QuackGuru, I am not following you. How did I find the article? Because I am interested in the subject, that's why. ... Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)" Besides, aren't acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine both part of alternative medicine? Heh, isn't that like @Joshua Jonathan: would accuse me of following him to Buddhism related articles? :-) So far, you and I are editing three articles in common, I think. I have also asked you to provide a complete list of these supposed articles "where I have been following you to" several times, but you have continued to repeat your accusation without providing any. I consider this as a personal attack. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

My fans even follow me to my drafts! Big Family is watching you! (I expect some comment here of course from the side of my fans on the use of the term "fans"). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture

The are still problems with your edit. Please try to improve the text and help resolve this dispute. There is a discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Acupuncture#Primary_sources.2Fpoor_sources_and_original_research. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Okay, now i'm going to read it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page and went ahead and fixed the issue. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing

Do not post messages on pseudoscience-friendly editors' pages and ask them to comment on RFCs. That's know as canvassing, and you know it's a blockable offense. I'd be hard put to think of people more likely to reject a pseudoscience label for an article than Bladesmulti or Joshua Jonathon, and that would appear to be the reason you have invited them to comment.—Kww(talk) 16:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience-friendly editors"? I assume that's your own conception. I asked for their neutral opinion because I know they are experienced editors and have dealt with similar issues before. I've informed about this at the article Talk Page[37] According to WP:CANVASS:

In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior.

So, notifying other editors of ongoing discussion is perfectly acceptable. Or have I tried to influence the outcome of the discussion in some particular way? No, I haven't. Furthermore:

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

[...]

• On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion [...]
• On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:

[...]

* Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

* Editors known for expertise in the field

In terms of WP:CANVASS, my request fulfills all the four criteria: limited posting (scale), neutral (message), nonpartisan (audience), and open (transparency). Anyway, the discussion at the article Talk Page is about the use of Nature editorial as a source. I hope you can focus on discussing the source on hand. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It fails "non-partisan" miserably. You chose the recipients because they are likely to reject s pseudoscience labeling.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I am a little bit confused. The RfC is about using the Nature editorial as a source; not whether TCM is pseudoscience or not. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And you don't see the problem with selecting editors that are likely to disagree with the editorial's content to comment on whether the review quote should be included?—Kww(talk) 17:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That must be your own assumption. I have already explained above why I have asked their opinion, and that seems to be perfectly in line with WP:CANVASS. The source is to be assessed by it's content, and I don't expect any user to have any pre-established opinions. Therefore, your accusation of "selecting editors that are likely to disagree" is completely groundless. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not groundless at all. Your explanation doesn't hold water, and your edits clearly violated WP:CANVASS. Next time I see such behaviour, you will be taken to WP:AE.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree; this is obvious canvassing, and the choice of people to contact or not contact seems to be based on whether or not they'd support your side. Jayaguru-Shishya, if you want to discredit yourself further, that's your choice, of course; but don't expect others to trust you. bobrayner (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And I wonder why, Kww? @Hafspajen, Joshua Jonathan, JimRenge, and Bladesmulti:, is it true that you are editors that "are likely to reject s pseudoscience labeling" like Kww claims here? And if some of you do, is it a punishable opinion, Kww? Anyway, it seems that you have been labeled into some category by administrator Kww already. WP:CANVASS, however, is really clear when it comes to canvassing:

However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate.

By making such statements, you are also attacking against experienced editors here in Wikipedia. I've asked for a neutral opinion, and that's perfectly acceptable per WP:CANVASS. So far, you are claiming other editors to have some "pre-established position" with respect to this RfC without providing any evidence for your claims (?). It is totally up to the editors if they want to comment the on-going discussion or not. I hope they will though, for the reasons given in the earlier comments already. If they don't want to get involved, I understand that as well. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And isn't QuackGuru doing what Jayaguru-Shishya did [38]? If Kww refuses to take action against this, Jayaguru-Shishya may wish to ask John to do it. -A1candidate (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Noticeboards are traditionally exempt from canvassing rules, so long as the statement is neutral. I disagree with that part of the policy, in that I agree that posting on a noticeboard or wikiproject that you believe is likely to be biased should be considered canvassing as well. I lost that argument long ago. If you want to relitigate it for the future, feel free: I'll actually support your position. That doesn't mean that QG isn't following the policy as currently enforced, though.—Kww(talk) 18:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you make think that I am "pseudoscience-friendly"; if I reject the label "pseudoscience", that would be because I wouldn't us it all, since it still suggests some sort of science. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what the definition is of "pseudoscience", but I guess, in this context, it would mean: any investigation of TCM which looks like scientific research, but fails to meet the criteria of proper scientific research. See Big Mind Process#Clinical trial; that's an example of pseudoscience, I guess (or at least the interpretation given to it before I cleaned it up. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Kww. Noticeboards are of no exception from canvassing rules. WP:CANVASS mentions the following:

• The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion.
• A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions.
• On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior).
• On the user talk pages of concerned editors.

Wikipedia noticeboards are mentioned clearly at WP:CANVASS, just like the user talk ages. In other words, both are okay. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Any competent editor would realise that hand-picking talkpages of sympathetic users is not equivalent to a neutral comment made at a relevant noticeboard. I think you know this too; it is unfortunate that you pretend otherwise.

Jayaguru-Shishya, if you want to discredit yourself further, that's your choice, of course; but don't expect others to trust you. bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears you might have violated WP:CANVASSING here. QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Los Natas edits

• Please see the definition of the word "coined."
• Please use the correct method of asking for more information. It is not interpolating "such as?" into the text of an article.
• There's no need to seek consensus on an article's talk page before making edits.

· rodii · 01:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rodii. I think the right place for discussion is at Los Natas -talk page where the other contributors could follow the discussion as well in order to improve the article. If you find errors though, you can also help to improve the article by correcting those faults instead of removing one's contributions. Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Hello,
WP:OVERLINK states that "Links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." I can't really understand why you are neglecting this? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the edit infobox didn't capture this (was left empty), sorry. Anyway, I undid revision back to version by Rothorpe (talk) =P So I'm in favour of his/her edit... Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It's allright. I appreciate your concern over the overlinks by the way. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDHT violation

I provided evidence that you have no consensus to restore the tag but you ignored it. The evidence is against you on this. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You provided a link to Talk:Chiropractic#Tag restored against CON again. As I already commented in my diff: "Doc James, McSly and Roxy the Dog were the only ones to comment besides you, DVMt and I at Talk:Chiropractic#Tag restored against CON again. As far as I can see, they made no objections."

You are making more and more allegations against me all the time. See Wikipedia:Harrassment#User space harassment. QuackGuru, are you here to edit collaboratively? Please answer my question. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I also provided more evidence on the talk page there is no consensus for the tag. I don't see consensus for the NPOV tag. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

How did I ignore them? No, I haven't ignored anything. You gave me the link and I already commented on that. The right place to discuss the issue is at Talk: Chiropractic. That's where the consensus is made, not on my Talk Page. So far, where are the objections?

You ignored my question: Are you here to edit collaboratively? You have been proposed collaboration for some times already, but you have never accepted the offer. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a RfC next time. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Quack, you really need to stop the harassment and constantly trying to create drama when someone disagrees with your edits. Also, use the chiro talk page so all this can be documented. DVMt (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Interested in your POV

Hey, I made some edits on Acupuncture to help resolve the neutral POV tag, beginning with the introductory paragraph. Despite having very high quality references, I have seen those edits reverted wholesale without any discussion on the talk page. If you ever have the time, I'd be interested in your perspective.Klocek (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your message! I already answered you at the article Talk Page! :P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR report closed

This is to inform you that an edit-warring noticeboard report in which you were involved has been closed. It is to further notify you that at the next sign of edit-warring on any pseudoscience related articles, including all alternative medicine articles, you will be blocked indefinitely.—Kww(talk) 03:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that warning was miswritten. Consider it to read "The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block."—Kww(talk) 13:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

How come I was misusing the administrative noticeboards? I am not furthering any pseudoscientific POV's Kww, my report was concerning violation of 3RR. There sure were some lengthy discussions at the report that I filed, but I never participated any of those.

I don't think my warning is really fair. There was no POV pushing from my part: you can even notice that I didn't take any part of that POV-related discussion there. Could you please have another look at it? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did you make a bogus report against me and continue to ignore the evidence against you. QuackGuru (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Explain. The diffs show your edit warring at the 3RR report. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What evidence? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The evidence shows you falsely accused me of violating the 3RR rule.[39][40] and you made a bogus 3RR report. User:Kww warned you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive245#User:QuackGuru_reported_by_User:Jayaguru-Shishya_.28Result:_DvMT_and_Jayaguru-Shishya_warned.29. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:Jayaguru-Shishya_is_not_moving_on_and_he_is_continuing_his_battleground_behaviour. Do you agree you made a mistake? Do you agree you will stop following me to other articles? If you don't agree to stop following me then I think a topic ban for pseudoscience related articles is appropriate. I asked you before to stop following me. See User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya/Archive 1#Please stop following me to other articles and undoing my edits. Your first edit to both articles[41][42] was to revert without explanation. See WP:HOUND. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Enough of that nonsense. So where is the evidence? All you gave me was eight links. So far, you have refused to provide a complete list to support your paranoid allegations, so just cut that crap. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Right now, QuackGuru, you aren't doing yourself any favours. Let it drop. If you can point to an actual instance of edit-warring or similar obstructive behaviour, feel free to bring it to my attention. Constantly posting the same link over and over again with a request for a topic ban hurts your cause.—Kww(talk) 04:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor note

It's not necessary to respond to every turn of the thread like this. Say your piece, and then let others have their say. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

About nature source in TCM

I check the source from nature which define the TCM as pseudoscience. This source is [43]. Actually this article tries to refute another article which is also from nature [44]. The second one describe some opinion, one of them is to use system biology as a way to assess the usefulness of tcm. I just wonder whether it is good to use one article in nature as the view of nature journal and the primary source while ignore others which are also from nature. Despite article [45] which is also from nature 448 in 2007, I see another article from journal nature [46] which describe the usefulness (for dementia) of TCM. This article was published in 2010 and stated " Sound therapeutic effects promote more scientists, domestic and abroad, to study extracts from herbal medicines. Today, a great number of compounds from herb extracts have proven to be multi-targeted, low toxicity and potent in alleviating dementia." It seems there are many articles which present different idea in nature [47]. I wonder whether to add all of these sources from nature to keep neutrally. I hope someone can check all of these articles from nature journal [48]. Now I think one editorial in nature is a neutral description in this article but whatever, add the website link for the reference is a good way for reader to follow up the source. I don't think there is a standard nature magazine view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.125.166 (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I'm a bit busy these days but I promise to check through your sources with a better time! What do you think that would be the biggest contributions of those new sources to the article? Studies on the efficacy of TCM on dementia? Generally, if you have good reliable sources, I can't see any reason why such sources couldn't be used in the article. =P

Hello, I am the user who start this section. Actually my point is just neutrally indicate that“this is one editorial in Nature” like my edition now [49]. Actually, I have edited this [50] when I first start this section in talk page but someone revert my edition. I want to avoid an edition war so I claim in talk page now[51] before I edited it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.63.1 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Criticism"

Talking this off the article talk page. I repeat - I recommend that you get more solidly grounded and understand that stating the relationship between TCM and science in Wikipedia in a neutral way is not criticism - it is what we do here. I know it is difficult when you are dealing with hard core anti-quack people, but at the end of the day, you are responsible for your own head. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply Jytdog, I've been quite busy these days. I agree with you what you said above. However, I was trying to point out that (if I still recall the discussion right) whereas studies with both positive and negative results do exist, we should seek to bring forth both sides. I think you guys had pretty good discussion about it on Herbxue's Talk Page [something like this). Criticism is good and it's ineviable for scientific approach. I hope we no longer have any misunderstanding about that one. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your friendly reply but I feel we are not connecting still. In Wikipedia, since the basis of TCM is qi and other prescientific notions of the body, those notions, and treatments based on them, are pseudoscience and "alternative medicine." If any given specific intervention is tested using the scientific method and found to be effective for some specific disease, then we have an empirical, scientific grounds for saying that the specific treatment is scientific and is medicine, even though it remains without a scientific basis. But the field of TCM as a whole remains pseudoscience and alternative medicine. It is not "criticism" to say this in Wikipedia, it is the foundation from which we start, here in Wikipedia. Article Talk pages are not the place to try to change that foundation. I hope that makes sense... Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's stop feeding the trolls

It seems that it's only the two of us. I have had enough and won't be responding to this shit any more. He's clearly trolling now. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hi JS! I'm going to take you up on that offer to address key shortcomings and systematic bias at the chiro article. I had been working on an improved/neutralized version in my sandbox. If follows the MEDMOS style as well (specific sections in specific order). How about you take a look and give me some feedback and we can start to prioritize where we're going to begin. DVMt (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, DVMt (talk)! Thanks for your proposal, sure I will accept it! I'll take a look at it with a better time! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I made a proposal for a new lede at the chiro talk page. Give it a looksee and check out the language, tone, grammar. If that's OK to your eye, I can insert the citations, although I currently forget how to copy and paste the references from my sandbox to the talk page. There is a specific way of doing this, but I need a refresher. DVMt (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think before any significant changes are made to the article we should go present the case to a noticeboard of some sort (I forget the official name). This was done last year with respect to 'proving' that chiropractic was a health profession. What do you think? DVMt (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

JG, time to report QG, have your diffs ready, I'll have mine ready to go to. A topic ban on all alt-med articles, on specifically chiropractic and TCM would be appropriate. Please let me know when this is initiated. Diplomacy has failed, unfortunately. DVMt (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Here was the last report. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2.

For a new report you can start at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru3. But please be aware you must provide strong evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Suspicious attempt to get me topic banned, indef'ed here [52]. The cynics have spoken, but since you've seen me at the chiro page and talk page, I was wondering if you would care to share your experience, if possible. No pressure, and no hard feelings either way. Neuraxis (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I left my response at the WP:ANI already. Personally, I don't see any reason for a ban, but I do find name calling inappropiate though (or making such implications). I know it is hard to keep your cool sometimes, and I have to admit that I have lost mine too as well from time to time. I think you still owe an apology for that. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Refactoring others comments

It is inappropriate to alter the text of another user's comments in a discussion, as you did in this edit at WP:ANI. If you wish to criticize or comment on another user's wording, you can do so in our own comments; but to place words in another user's comment does not further honest discussion. Actions like this can lead to restrictions on editing privileges. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ooops...! Sorry @NatGertler:. I cited BullRangifer and accidentally modified his original post, not mine. I made the corrections and you can see now how it was meant to be :P My apologies for the hassle! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that it was an honest error, and thanks for taking care of it! --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(yawn) He filed one on me and Herbxue too. I wouldn't pay too much (translation: any) attention. It's just something QG feels he has to do sometimes, I guess .... some of us go to the beach to de-stress; QG goes to Wikipedia drama boards. As you can see, the last time he did this with me, the results weren't exactly earth-shattering: here. Happy editing, Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know what is your specific explanation for this edit. Why did you think this revert you made (against consensus) improved the article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Correction: there was no consensus at that point. Anyway that was a week ago, and the issue is now settled. Everyone else has moved on (see bottom of this section; no further mainspace or talkspace edits about this since June 26). --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 01:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

thezensite

Do you know thezensite? An amazing amount of critical studies on Zen. May be useful~for you, given your enthusiasm and developing knwoledge of the history of Zen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mate! I think I just used it as a source in Kapleau and Yasutani articles! =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

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

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read this comment. There is no consensus to restore the text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Copied to Talk:Chiropractic#Kshilts' edits 15-18 July 2014

:Why is 2/0 being stamped here? As far as I can see, you left this post, right? If that's what you think, I'd advise you to file a 3RR case right now. Thanks. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You added sourced material that was undue weight and you added unsourced material too. The following text was unsourced: "The NBCE Part-IV examination is a comprehensive practical exam that assesses case history, orthopedic & neurological testing, clinical diagnosis, radiography & imaging interpretation, manual techniques and case management. The Part-VI exam has generally replaced individual state examinations. Jurisdictions still administer a jurisprudence examination to test a candidate's knowledge of the statutes and regulations that govern chiropractic practice within its particular jurisdiction."[53] You made this comment but the section was too long with the recent additions and most editors disagree with restoring the overly long text.[54][55][56][57][58] QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I didn't add anything. I made a revert since you deleted sourced material per "unsourced material". No mention about undue weight or anything else. This is already discussed in full detail at the article Talk Page. It seems that all your diffs are after I made the revert.

Besides, I don't find the section too long, as I have expressed at the Talk Page

Your ban/block history is quite impressive. I'd advise you to be careful. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You thought[59] I left the message on this talk page but it does not really matter who left the message I suppose.

I tagged the original research. The first revert was made under the edit summary "shorten long section and organise text; remove unsourced text)".[60] The OR and undueweight was restored. After the edit was reverted again[61] Jayaguru-Shishya, it seems you restored the disputed text against consensus on July 24, 2014. You claimed: "I didn't add anything" but he did add something. He added OR and disputed text. It seems you ignored the comment that the edit added OR to the article. I explained it in my previous comment on July 23, 2014 the edit added OR and was a violation of WP:SUMMARY. You claimed "So far, sourced material was removed, as stated above."[62] But you did not address the "1) poor quality sources 2) undue weight 3) original research and 4) lack of consensus."[63] Your proposal on the talk page was using primary sources to expand the section. We should use reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. See Talk:Chiropractic#Controversial changes. Cheers. QuackGuru (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

Hello. I want to remark that you give a fairly idiosyncratic interpretation to this guideline.[64] I have edited tens of thousands of articles featuring foreign languages and come across even more of them. As an active member of WikiProject Etymology, I can asssure you that linking language names at first occurence is common Wikipedia practice. This linking practice includes even French and German which are major languages, let alone Vietnamese which is not. Since edit-warring is not particularly constructive, let us discuss this here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your message. I am sorry if I was a bit unclear with my explanation. In my opinion, Vietnamese with 75 million native speakers can be considered as rather a "major" language. That's the reason for my edit.

Anyway, it's not a question of life and death for me, so it's okay if you want to include it to the article. Generally though, I don't think languages with such many speakers would fall short of "major's" definition. I hope this helped to clarify! =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Usually, only the first ten of the List of languages by number of native speakers are considered major ones. Of course, the cut-off limit is arbitrary. In any case, major or not, language names are commonly linked. I will propose that the documentation of the policy be changed since it does not reflect current common practice. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Civility

Please remember to deal with your fellow editors civilly and collegiately. You may wish to revise your statements here and here. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement directed at me may sound a little awkward, but I don't think it was meant to be incivil -A1candidate (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please be more precise? In the first diff you gave me, I told my appreciation towards all the hard work A1candidate has done in order to find those sources. In the second diff, can you please address what is it all about? Here[65], QuackGuru isn't really addressing any explanation for his edits. ~~

(talk page stalker) I'd guess that for the first diff, 2/0 is talking about your comment to Brangifer, which is further down in the diff. Diffs for multiple edits are easy to get misunderstood; happens all the time. regards,--Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 15:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank You for Your Thanks!

Hello Jayaguru-Shishya: I see you sent me a note thanking me for my recent edit to 'Buddha Nature'. That was kind of you to do so! I appreciate it - and your own fair-minded and constructive editing of, and commenting on, Wiki articles. Best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

White Lotus: wikilink of Maitreya

Hi Jayaguru,

Why did you revert my link of Maitreya at White Lotus in this revert?

BTW, the link has been restored, together with other changes, in the next edit, by Ogress.

I understand that you are working to fight overlinking on Wikipedia – thanks for this! ;)

However, per WP:UNDERLINK and WP:OVERLINK, “Maitreya” should be linked: this is a “technical term that many readers are unlikely to understand at first sight”.

If you feel that the lead section is too link-heavy – bearing in mind that “In technical articles that use uncommon terms, a higher-than-usual link density in the lead section may be necessary.” – then please try to move the term into later in the article, per WP:LEADLINK.

If you feel that this is in error, and that “Maitreya” should not be linked, could you please explain your reasoning? This seems clear-cut to me, and at least one other editor ostensibly agrees.

Thanks!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

My addition of a link to Maitreya was actually done without any awareness of the revert; I just was copyediting and it stood out as needing a link badly. So... there's that in your corner, nbarth, I independently agree. Ogress _smash! 05:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nbarth! Indeed, I shouldn't have removed the link [[Maitreya]] after all. My apologies for that! The reason why I hastily made it removed was that the term "Buddha Maitreya" used to be linked [[Buddha]] [[Maitreya]] earlier, which I find pretty redundant IMHO. Sorry Nbarth, I got mistaken that you restored that form of linking, even you made it into [[Maitreya]] alone. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem – agree that Buddha Maitreya is excessive. That makes sense, thanks!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is a reliable source

• William F. Williams, ed. (2000). Acupuncture. Facts on File. pp. 3–4. ISBN 978-1579582074. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |work= ignored (help) This is not a random book. It is an encyclopedia.QuackGuru (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't yet found where to access that book. The name, however, implies that it has something to do with extraterrestrials, is that right? If so, are we using an encyclopedia on extraterrestrials to support claims on medical efficiency? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience is not a book about extraterrestrials in general. The encyclopedia covers pseudoscience from Alien abductions to zone therapy. The name does not imply it is a book on extraterrestrials in general. It covers a wide range of pseudoscience topics. Please don't get involved in an edit war or claim the source is not reliable. Did you read the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience page? QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Have I made even one single revert concerning your addition of this book? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You have made a comment on the talk page which concerns me. Do you agree your comment on the talk page was misleading or you made a mistake? QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Copied to source? - "From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy"; to be continued there

You changing your previous comment and questioning weather the book is reliable. You claimed "What about this one: "From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy", are we using books on extraterrestrials (!) now too?."

I told you the book is not on extraterrestrials in general. See WP:IDHT. QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You are not giving a valid reason for deleting sourced text. For example, you have not shown how the encyclopedia is unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Copied to source? - "From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy"; to be continued there

Jaya, Williams isn't a MEDRS but is an RS, and is used as such on WP; please don't confuse the issue with a blanket objection. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 02:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete text from the encyclopedia when you haven't read the book?[66] QuackGuru (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Already found. Please participate the discussion at the article Talk Page, there have been given plenty of reasons why the source, Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy, doesn't meet MEDRS. For example:

I agree with A1candidate that the content in the diff provided above is difficult to justify supporting with Williams 2013. I agree a more MEDRS compliant source is appropriate for "There is no evidence that inserting needles can affect the course of any disease." I apologize for my contentiousness, it was due to a misunderstanding. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Google Scholar, the book has an impressive amount of 14 citations. Wow. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, no editor has a serious problem with the current text. Maybe editors can find another article to improve and move on. QuackGuru (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The comment by User:MrBill3 above was posted by Jayaguru-Shishya. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

True. I guess this discussion is already outdated. The text supported by Williams[67] is no longer included in the article. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Continued tagging of reliable sources

You are tagging reliable sources.

The source you tagged is 2005 source Cohnrane review.

The Ernst source you tagged is a reliable source.

You tagged another source but there is broad consensus to use the source for the claim[68]. See Talk:Acupuncture#The_source_we_are_working_with_.5B39.5D. Do you think your continued tagging is somehow productive? QuackGuru (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the 2005 review is a Cochrane one, and according to WP:MEDDATE Cochrane reviews are an exception. I got mistaken, thanks for your notice.

The Ernst source, however, is outdated and therefore should not be used. The discussion is taking place at Talk:Acupuncture#Outdated reviews in the article.

Wang, Shu-Ming; Kain, Zeev N.; White, Paul F. (2008) is outdated as well. I didn't find a clear consensus at the Talk Page. So far, it seems you, A1candidate, Middle 8, Doc James and I who have commented there. You and Doc James seem to be in favor of the source (even it's outdater per WP:MEDDATE), and I'd like to hear clarification from Middle 8 and A1candidate. However, consensus is not a vote, and we need an up-to-date source for making medical claims. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You haven't shown the sources are outdated and I provided evidence that there is consensus to use the 2008 source for the claim. See diffs.[69][70] QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The review is from 2008 February, so it is outdated per WP:MEDDATE. The diff where you falsely claim to have "provided evidence that there is consensus" is directing back to this very same discussion we are having here right now. Therefore, you falsely claimed to have provided evidence even you have not. The last two diffs, see my answer above. I'd advise you - once again - to participate the discussion at the article Talk Page. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't move my comment to another section. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor refactor thing

Hi J-S, just a small friendly reminder to be careful to put your comments at the end of others' comments rather than someplace in the middle of them (e.g. [71] [72]). I know my posts can be pretty long-winded (and can include bullet points and stuff) so it's not always readily apparent. :-) Hey, generally, really appreciate your patience on that page.... it can be trying. all best regards. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 22:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for your notice! Honestly, I have no idea what my comments were doing there in the middle of of your comments :O Sorry about that! Gotta be more careful in the future! :-) Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for engaging collaboratively and constructively. Presenting well reasoned and clear arguments and being open and engaged in discussion is essential in building consensus. While things may not always work out in the way you might think best, I can assure you that collegial engagement raises the level respect accorded your input (both in a specific instance and in general). I know editing can be frustrating at times and dealing with some editors strains one's patience. I hope you find the work towards consensus satisfying. I'd also say that consensus is not majority rule and when you have presented policy based rationale for your position and responded similarly to others and it seems that "local consensus" is dominated by numbers if you bring the issue to another forum (form or level of dispute resolution) your position will receive appropriate attention (and you can save some time re-arguing by using diffs). I think WP benefits from editors with a variety of opinions and your input is of value, though I may disagree with you at times, I think your positions deserve consideration. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message MrBill3, and sorry for the late response. I truly appreciate your message, and I look forward editing the same articles with you even though they are very few at the moment. :) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

OC's script

Hi, I use his triple one-touch button on his script, which harmonises dates (got to know the rules for that, though), fixes dashes, and unlinks lots of common terms. Needs a bit of human checking, but it usually generates a few echo-thanks when I do a session with it. You could use part or all of this functionality. Tony (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice TONY! Do you have a link for this one possibly? :P -BR, Script-Newbie Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverting changed to WB Encyclopedia article

I'd like to ask why you continue to revert my edits on the World Book Encyclopedia page. I am adding facts backed up and linked by reputable sources that I have cited, as is the policy. This article is incredibly outdated and unfactual in many places and I'm just trying to add to it in order to paint a clear picture. Why are you trying to hide the truth to maintain this article in a sad state?

In other words, what's your problem?

Lurelearning (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lurelearning. I think the problem is that you are using the company's own website as the main source in the article. What we need are reliable independent sources instead. For example, "http://store.worldbook.com/international-sales" is hardly a reliable source. Also text like "'Well-known for it’s iconic encyclopedia...", or "World Book also publishes series nonfiction for the K-12 market, covering history, science, geography, and other curricular basics." and then backed up by the company website, it sounds more like a commercial announcement rather than an encyclopedic piece of text.

Taking a closer look on the sources, the company's own website is used quite largely even aside from your edits. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it'd be your edits alone; there is a larger problem with the article in general. Also many of the links are already dead. Let's do this: I'll ask for a second opinion on the article, and let's see what we can do after, okay? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, does the latter quote happen to be taken from this thread on the article Talk Page, posted by a World Book Inc. employee? And does World Book Encyclopedia happen to be the only article you have been editing in Wikipedia ever so far? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lurelearning:Sorry for asking this straight, but are you possibly AEMSWB? =P Don't worry, I'd like warmly welcome all the newcomers to Wikipedia, as well as assume good faith :-) Anyway, this is the thing: being an employee of World Book Encyclopedia does not automatically prevent you from editing the article. Declaring your possible conflict of interest (WP:COI) (like already done at AEMSWB's account) is essential, and for sources we should use independent third-party sources; unfortunately any material published by the company itself is not considered valid. I'd advise you also to stick to only one account: using multiple accounts can be considered as "sock puppeting" (WP:SPI) which will result to your accounts being banned.

If you have questions about using reliable sources, I'd be happy to answer according to my best knowledge. If I were you, I would also consider throwing a message at user Cullen328's Talk Page, he's a real expert on these things. If you are not AEMSWB, please ignore this message. ;) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your reply. I now understand that it's against policy to cite from a company's own website. I apologize as I was not aware of that before. I guess what I don't understand is that after my edits were reverted, I tried to add back some of my information WITH independent third-party sources like when I cited from Publisher's Weekly and www.answers.com and other websites that were not part of World Book. When those facts were taken down because for the reason that I was "over-citing," I became really frustrated. I have a lot of great information to add to this article that I could back up with sources and it just seemed like anything I added was being taken down. I read up on how to edit an article with a conflict of interest and tried to follow policy, and I posted some suggested edits on the article's talk page, but there was zero activity and no responses to my posts. I have good content to add to this article to be reflective of the company today, and a list of independent third-party sources to verify this content, but if I can't seem to get this approved. Can you please help me? Lurelearning (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cao Đài, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Monad, Yang and Yin. 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) 09:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

sfn and websources

Check this out: a reflist for websources! A neat list of websources, in a separate list, instead of somewhere in the text. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ngakpa

Respectfully:

• please do not delete citations like that; I also don't agree that the previously-disorganised format is better.
• ngak'phang is associated only with a sketchy Welsh group called "the Aró", who are white people claiming to have all kinds of ordinations. It's not a well-formed Tibetan word.

Thanks, Ogress _smash! 00:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, what cited material/citations are you talking about? I took another look to the edits and I couldn't find any cited material removed. Actually, the first paragraph in the lede remains totally unsourced at the moment.

I don't know about "ngak'phang", but in my humble opinion, the old version had a clearer section for etymology. Well, it's not a question of life and death for me, but perhaps some other editor can take a look at it? If the current one is pleasing enough, it's totally alright. @Omnipaedista:, would you want to take a look? I know you are an expert with the etymology things =P

Oh, I tried to find a source for the tagged paragraph but with no success. I guess it can go. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Electronic Cigarette RFC

Since you have edited the article reciently you may want to comment on the current request for comment on the talk page. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I left my reply on the Talk Page. I agree with your position: for example, if you take a look at cigarette, you'll notice it's not per MEDRS either. I would find it very odd if electronic cigarette would be. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Dorje Pakmo

The Dorje Pakmo article is troubling for a number of reasons, half of which are NPOV and half of which are that the article confuses the crucial Vajrayana meditational deity with the officially-PRC-sanctioned reincarnation known by the same name. Vajravārāhī is a form of Vajrayoginī, who is the most important deity in Tibetan Buddhism, hands-down, and appears in the Vajravārāhī form a significant portion of the time.

I removed the Chinese "spelling" because it was simply the Tibetan syllables in Chinese characters pseudo-phonetically. The Tangmi name for her must exist but I doubt very much it is "Duōjié Pàmó" spelled so that it reads "ugly woman with too many remarkable handkerchiefs". It would be a native name. Ogress _smash! 20:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ooooh, thanks for your clarification Ogress! I had no idea that it's a pseudo-phonetic spelling of the Tibetan one :O I self-reverted my edit. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Mandaeanism

Jayaguru-Shishya:

I don't know about others' responses to edits, but I think that removing what call 'overlinks' is way beyond what ought to be done on this article. I personally believe STRONGLY that these edits ought to be reverted because they REDUCE the utility or usefulness of this article to a newbie reader. MaynardClark (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the edits, without exception, make the newer Jayaguru-Shishya-version article less useful, interesting, and of notable quality than was the previous article before Jayaguru-Shishya's edits. MaynardClark (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! I am sorry if you feel that way. Do you have any specific edit(s) / part of edit(s) in your mind? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice

You were correct here[73] if you had also looked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_54#MEDRS_verification. I have mentioned you on ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ayurveda Bladesmulti (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message! I'll try to find some time to have look at the ANI report tonight!. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ban and Block

No one got banned from the article, but only blocked because of particular changes. Change banned to blocked. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for your notification! Wrong term indeed! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Vajravārāhī

I appreciate your attempts to remove excess wikilinks, but I think every single wikilink you removed from Vajravārāhī was in fact important and/or you did not understand what I was linking. Also, I gave a specific cite for a description of Vajravārāhī with a page number and yet you asked for the actual quote? I provided it, but it seems overkill. It's easily accessible on google books if you weren't sure I was telling the truth. Ogress _smash! 22:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Ogress:! Thanks for your message. I'm sorry, I got mistaken with removing this "[[Sakya]] lama Rikey Jatrel". I've recently seen lots of linking like "[[Dalai Lama]] [[Tenzin Gyatso]]", and I hastily thought it was a similar linking. Of course, you are right, "Sakya" is one of the four major schools of Tibetan Buddhism, so naturally what I just described is not the case. Sorry for that!

About the two other linkings, I am sorry I was unclear why I removed "wrathful form" and "iṣṭadevatā". When it comes to the first one, I think "wrathful form" isn't really that useful since the article doesn't even mention Vajravārāhī, i.e. it doesn't provide any information about the subject. The second one, the text talks about "...one of the main iṣṭadevatā practices...", whereas the article "Iṣṭadevatā" doesn't even speak about such practices, especially the "...practices of Vajravārāhī..." as mentioned in the Vajravārāhī article. I hope this helped to clarify my reasons a bit. =P

Oh, I didn't mean to question your integrity with respect to that Google books source! I am sorry if I gave you that impression. Actually, I've seen your hard work at the Buddhism-related articles, and I appreciate it really much. You see, I've just recently discovered that {{request quotation}} tag, and I used that since I couldn't find any Google books source that would be available for preview / the very page would be available. As far as I understand, the viewing rights vary depending from the country, and at least I couldn't preview the source (from Finland). That's the reason why I asked a quotation (for footnotes or something), no mistrust here involved. :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:John

Replying to a user in 5 different places simultaneously is not helpful. In fact, all this discussion and complaining about other editors isn't terribly helpful either, at least in the current context. Please try to focus more on editing and compromise and less on other users. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, what is not exactly helpful? I remember you leaving a post similar to this earlier. When one cannot participate the discussion - no matter how fierce it seems - every day, it is the most natural thing to catch up with the conversation, don't you think?

I don't think you are saying that there'd be some kinda time-limit to message the on-going discussions? Am I right? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You removed my comment!

I don't know what you were thinking when you removed my talk page comment. Don't ever do that again. If you have an opinion, write it on the talk page so we all can learn and discuss. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Brangifer. I am not sure if you saw my edit summary, but it went as follows:

Spam: Isn't this a news paper that first interviews you, and then asks you to pay for publishing the story? :-)

Anyway, I'll give it to the consideration of others. Personally, I don't have that much good to say about that news paper, and I don't think we should be promoting them in Wikipedia. I inserted my ES to the comment section now. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I replied there. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Xmas!

Hotei, god of happiness at Jōchi-ji temple.

Happy Xmas! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Have I got news for you:

"In the West, the image of Budai is often mistaken for Gautama Buddha[6], or Santa Claus."

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Jayauru-Shishya, Happy New Year to you too! Gzuufy (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gzuufy! I appreciate that! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Jayaguru-Shishya!

Happy New Year!

Jayaguru-Shishya,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. LesVegas (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

LesVegas (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Please have the best year 2015 as well! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification

@Jayaguru-Shishya: Hello. Here you requested a quotation to verify. I'm just trying to understand, did you mean to add this elsewhere? Do you really want a quotation to verify that Qafeh is the author of his linked book? And that he spearheaded the Dor Deah movement? Thanks, Contributor613 (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello there, User:Contributor613! I mean something like here: [74]. Since the source is in Hebrew, perhaps you can provide the Hebrew quote with a translation? =P As far as I know, users' own translations are okay too if no other are available :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was strange for you to request a quote but now the source of the misunderstanding is clear: The footnote isn't merely a link talking about his book. It contains his book! I'll make that clear in the footnote, as you're right that those not familiar with Hebrew won't necessarily realize this. Thanks for clarifying. Contributor613 (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I was really wondering how someone could request a quotation of a linked book for verification(?!) and you showed me the simple reason: Being a Hebrew text, you wouldn't know it's his linked book without a note in English to that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor613 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Cao Đài

I've restored my edit to Cao Đài, which is based on the version from 03:33, 30 September 2014‎, because the translation that you provided is incorrect. The traditional Chinese characters do not match the simplified Chinese characters because the traditional characters are actually the name of Cao Đài in (Sino-)Vietnamese, not Chinese. Chinese uses both different characters ("教" instead of "道") and has a different word order ("高臺道/高臺教" rather than "道高臺/教高臺"). The "simplified" characters are Cao Đài in Chinese. In any event, it's not really correct to say that "台" is the simplified form of "臺"; it's merely an alternate form, and it's actually more commonly used than "臺" even in places that use traditional Chinese like Taiwan. Most importantly, given that Cao Đài is a Vietnamese religion, there's no reason to provide a Chinese translation in the first place. That's why I've marked "道高臺" as Chữ nôm. Talu42 (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Talu42! I am glad you noticed those errors. Actually, I don't know Chinese myself, so I am glad we have an editor who has better knowledge on these things :3 Sorry, when I reverted your edit, I didn't know those were flawed. See, at many articles, related to Tibetan Buddhism for example, the Chinese characters get deleted by some users just because "it's not Chinese Buddhism".

Anyway, I think you just made the point. :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Sharf

Hi. Did I ever mention these publications to you?

• Sharf, Robert H. (1993), "The Zen of Japanese Nationalism", History of Religions, Vol. 33, No. 1. (Aug., 1993), pp. 1-43.
• Sharf, Robert H. (1995-A), Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited (PDF) {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
• Sharf, Robert H. (1995-B), "Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience" (PDF), NUMEN, vol.42 (1995) {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
• Sharf, Robert H. (1995-C), "Sanbokyodan. Zen and the Way of the New Religions" (PDF), Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1995 22/3-4 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)
• Sharf, Robert H. (2000), The Rhetoric of Experience and the Study of Religion. In: Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7, No. 11-12, 2000, pp. 267-87 (PDF)

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Joshua, and thanks for providing those publications! I appreciate that :-) At the moment, I have familiarized myself only with Zen and the Way of the New Religions. I think I have used it as a source in a couple of Sanbokyodan-related articles.

The subject of Zen Buddhism is always so interesting, isn't it? I just feel sorry for the fact that the very founder of Sanbokyodan sect, Hakuun Yasutani, got be known as an anti-Semite. I am trying to follow up the fierce conversation at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case and RfC: Is the Nature article an appropriate source for the claim it is attached to?, both of which discuss whether acupuncture / traditional Chinese medicine is pseudoscience or not. I guess there was a similar stub of conversation earlier at your Talk Page when the same question concerning Ayurveda popped up. Anyway, I'll start studying those publications right after this snafu has passed by. :/ Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk-pages

Article' talkpages are not right place for discussion about COI, it can be either a Wikipedia:COIN board or the user talk(page). I am only saying because COI on article' talk pages leads to a lot of unproductive discussion. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick notification, Bladesmulti! I made a rapid self-revert on the article Talk Page. Anyway, do you think there is a need for such? =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I had altered your comment a bit[75] don't you think that a diff was enough to describe rather than inserting his removed comment over there. My change was reverted by other user, though I have altered your changes before too. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It's okay Bladesmulti. I think a diff is equally good, although many times I prefer straight quotes myself. This is because some users tend to add so many diffs that it's really hard to get a clear picture of what's going on even.

I think your edit was reasonable though. I know that he removed his comment, and I brought that up in my post. What I was meant to demonstrate, was his use of language that has been a matter of concern many times before. Well, it's already been read by the recipient, so I think you might have made the case here. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Fischer-Schreiber

Hi! The original source is German; I've got the Dutch translation. I'll provide a quote, of course (but not right now right away at this moment!) Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ach so, ich kann auch ein bisschen Deutsch sprechen. Vielleicht kann ich dieses Buch online suchen x] Well, don't worry, there's no hurry! :-) I first noticed that the source in the lede (Schreiber 2008) isn't included in the sources section, so I was wondering if another source dealing with similar context would help. But then, I noticed it's in Dutch :-) Well, as they say: "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't alter my post

See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! Funny coincident. I just left a post at your Talk Page about the same thing. See, you shouldn't alter your original post after it's been replied to. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You think editors are not allowed to hat a comment? QuackGuru (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, deleted my comment[76] at your Talk Page. Feel uncomfortable with something? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Linking post-nominals

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Post-nominals. What was it about the change that you objected to? StAnselm (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the words again. If you don't want to discuss the issue, please don't revert. StAnselm (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. I think it would be highly advisable to gain consensus for the WP policy changes through discussion first before making changes to the prevailing consensus. After all, we are speaking about policies that effect every single article on Wikipedia. I'll reply to your post at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Post-nominals at better time. Cheers!

Thanks for the reply. Of course, the page in question is a guideline rather than a policy. But my argument is based on the idea that the prevailing consensus is to wikilink postnominals. StAnselm (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Has this discussion finished? It really looks to me like the consensus is to exclude, but obviously I am an involved party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StAnselm (talk • contribs) 06:33, 11 February 2015

Hi StAnselm. I just read through Post-nominals and RfC: linking pre- and post nominals. It seems that five editors are in favour of exclude, and 3 editors in favour of include. In my humble opinion, that doesn't yet make a consensus, especially when the current consensus have been around ever since November 2012. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Reinstated section on Dor Daim in Kabbalah

Hello. I re-added this edit, and wanted to let you know my thinking. Even though I don't agree with the reference to the reductionist philosophy you omitted, it is important to portray the complete picture of Kabbalah's history in modern times.

The reference exists, and here it is in the Stanford library: http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/6207188, although the citation style may need editing in the Wiki article. If you go to Wikipedia's "Dor Daim" article, you will see numerous supporting references that could be added to this section as well.

Hebrew language: The majority of legitimate Kabbalah is still sitting on shelves or scanned in e-libraries in Hebrew or Aramaic, untranslated, so there will be a bias to non-English sources. The reference as written, however, was translated into English. The block script is so different from English it is difficult to read even when it is translated. The reason most Kabbalistic works remain untranslated is that the study of Kabbalah has been discredited by these ultra-rationalists. Serious Kabbalah study only resumed recently.

It is ironic that the sages who the Yemini Rabbi alleges to be rationalists were also great Kabbalists. There is a great secret story behind that. Ayeletshacar (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Ayeletshacar! Thanks for your message and explaining your thought, I appreciate that. Have you seen the discussion at Talk:Kabbalah /Archive 4#{{request quotation}}? The issues with the source given have been discussed there. Anyway, I'll try to explain things in a nutshell.

For example, I know that the majority of the sources available on the subject are in Hebrew, and there is nothing wrong with using non-English sources in Wikipedia. According to WP:NONENG, however, one may request "a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided". The quote is to be accompanied by a translation. This may be by a published reliable source, by a Wikipedian, or a machine translation.

I first added the {{Request quotation}} template here: [77]. Later, the following quotation was provided: שהקים את תנועת... דור דעה[78]. Now, if you consider what WP:NONENG mentions above, it's still missing an English translation that "should always accompany the quote." I don't know any Hebrew myself, so as my last option I tried a couple of machine translations. Neither of the translations were nothing alike what the text says. Therefore, I removed the text. IMHO, a translation by someone who knows Hebrew is essential.

Hmm, you mentioned the "Dor Daim" article. Do you have any specific sources from there that we could use in Kabbala? That would easen things a lot. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Reinstated link to Lumia Denim on Lumia 1020 article

Hi there. I reverted your recent change on the Lumia 1020 article as at this time, the only location on Wikipedia for details about what the Denim update is is on the Microsoft Lumia page. Because of that, it's important that we maintain that link until such a time as a more full-fledged article appears on Lumia firmware updates. Please do not remove or replace the link until there's a better on-wiki page detailing the Denim update. Thanks. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. I agree with you coldacid, an article for "Lumia Denim" would be totally justified. If we want to have a more full-fledged article on Lumia Denim, however, I think we should have a red link instead. Having a link that actually doesn't even discuss the issue would give a wrong implication that such an article would already exist. So far, the whole section doesn't even mention "Lumia Denim". Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no discussion, but there are details provided in the history table presented on the article, which is almost immediately under the heading that's linked to in the 1020 article. Perhaps a dedicated anchor point should be set up there to link to instead, but I doubt that any individual firmware update for a particular range of phones would warrant its own article. For now, at least, the best is just pointing readers to that table. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears that Namlong618 had already created a Lumia Denim page redirecting to the same table; I've set anchors for each update on Microsoft Lumia and have updated the redirect page to point directly to the table row for Denim. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 19:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so what part of the text do you exactly wanna link to? Perhaps the very first item at Microsoft Lumia#History of Lumia updates? The current text at Lumia 1020 says the following (emphasis added):

The Lumia 1020 will receive the Lumia Denim software update, but without new features or updates to the system firmware, due to the phone's age

I can't really see how Microsoft Lumia#History of Lumia updates does support this? And even if it does, we should refer to a third party source, not to another Wikipedia article. But that's what we have done already, right? We have already two sources for this piece of text, so where do we need a wikilink that doesn't even discuss the topic? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we might actually be thinking about different things at this point? The text as it was is fine; it's just that the Denim link should point to existing content on Wikipedia for the update, which it does. Lumia Denim redirects directly to the row in the versions table that details the update, thanks to me adding {{Anchor}} for each update in the table, and it can be converted into a full page if there's ever enough content or if anyone's brave enough to try one with what details we know now. There's nothing more that needs doing, unless you feel like writing up a full article on the update. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, we were thinking about different things. It also seems there was more or less edit conflict involved, which prevented us from seeing each others' posts in real time. Anyway, good job with the anchors! Now the linking appears to be smooth and nice. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Relax duplicate linking rule (again!)

You might be interested to see that I'm reopening the issue of duplicate links at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Relax_duplicate_linking_rule. --Slashme (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Cao Đài

I hope you don´t mind my revert. I wanted to save the refs. Cheers JimRenge (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings JimRenge! Actually, I created a ==Further reading== where I replaced the sources in right format, but it got reverted by user JanetAlisonHoskins[79]. I removed the sources eventually as they were not used in the text at all, but were still included to ==References==.

If you have access to the sources though, and they are used properly, I'll trust your judgement. However, it seems that Eller (2007) is currently used both as a source in the article, as well as enlisted to ==Further reading==. I suppose that it should be in the latter instead of the former?

It also seems user JanetAlisonHoskins re-added Hoskins (2015) to ==Further reading==, even though it's already used in the article. I took the liberty to remove it together with Eller (2007). Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait a minute... user JanetAlisonHoskins is repeatedly adding sources by Janet Alison Hoskins...? If the two persons are the same, she should definitely declare her COI. If they aren't, well I have ran into some cases where the users are told to change their username. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not have access to the print sources, but I assume good faith that the editor is an WP:EXPERT.

WP:COI, WP:SELFCITING states: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it (...) conforms to the content policies (...), is not excessive," and does "not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." JimRenge (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I think some further clarification is needed in a form of {{Request quotation}} for example. I find that the user is spamming the same source on different sections, and that something that really catches my interest. Especially when there's a possibility that one might try promote his/her own works in Wikipedia.

I do assume good faith also, JimRenge. But I think declaration of COI would be a just thing to do towards everybody, and naturally it doesn't prevent one from editing. The peculiar behavior of user JanetAlisonHoskins leaves a lot to hope for, though. She reverted my edits where I placed the sources where they belong, the Further reading section, and has kept spamming the sources to different sections ever since. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we shouldn´t bite the expert newbies - see:WP:EXR. I have sent her the WP:COI, WP:SELFCITING text and assume a declaration of COI is not needed now. I guess she will be more cautious after being informed about COI etc.

Thank you for removing duplicate citations. I would have preferred the inline-citation and removal of the 2015 cite in "sources" and "further reading". JimRenge (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. I restored the 2015 source to the body and removed it from Further reading. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

RSN

So you've logged back in since yesterday, and are not responding to the ping, so I will take your silence as consent, and will close the RSN, and reinstate the content in a bit. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

sfn

I don´t know an ideal solution, but {{sfn|Hoskins (a)|2012}} might work. JimRenge (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@JimRenge: Woaaa....! You answered even before I managed to post on your Talk Page! :-D Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikilink

Hi,

I just realized I forgot to ping you there, but I just left a message at Talk:List of Internet encyclopedias regarded linking Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Rhododendrites! I just replied you back at the article Talk Page! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Elucidation?

Hey Jayaguru-Shishya,

I noticed that you reversed my link edit on the Buer article. Any reason for this? Moral philosophy is another term for ethics, since moral philosophy falls under the branch of ethics. I don't see why ethics should therefore not be linked there. If I don't receive a response from you, I'll just assume it isn't a big issue and will revert the article back to the change I made, since I think it is correct. I do agree with the unnecessary capitalization, though, and support that change.

Thanks,

Nøkkenbuer (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nøkkenbuer:, so why not linked to "ethics" instead? Or what does the source say? I find the piece of text quite problematic since it's not really backed up by any source. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: Apparently, it's from a 1995 Mathers edition of Dictionnaire Infernal, as is stated in the image here. I tried looking for a source, or a copy of it online, but I cannot find it. Should a be placed on both of these? Any recommendations? I retained "moral" here because of its use in that image and elsewhere throughout the Internet. Buer is always stated to teach "moral philosophy" or "moral and natural philosophy", not ethics (excepting once or twice on someone's blog). Also, we may want to revert the original capitalization, since it appears to be what's used in that image and elsewhere on Wikipedia. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. Should we choose "moral philosophy" or "ethics", I think we should stick to the peculiar term that the source says. Other Wikipedia articles, however, aren't a valid source to be referred to.

Thanks for the source as well. I haven't been able to edit Wikipedia for one week, but I can try to make some time to see if the source is available through university portals. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh I understand that Wikipedia isn't a valid referential source, but I pointed them out to show that some consistency is ideally needed among all these articles. I assume the term "moral philosophy", along with the capitalizations, was used in the source, but I can't confirm this. If you can, or show that it is not, it would be greatly appreciated. Should the other instances have their capitalization changed as well?

Feel free to let me know your thoughts whenever. It's no rush, especially since this is such a relatively minor issue. Have a great rest of the day/night! –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nøkkenbuer: Oh boy, I couldn't access that Mathers' edition of book through university portals... =F But if that's the source, sure we can add it to the article and add a {{Request quotation}} tag, or what do you think? That way some editor with access to the source could provide a quotation from the book in time. Well, there's no deadline (WP:NORUSH) :-)

About the capitalizations in general, I am not actually an expert but I think MOS:CAPS has a word or two to say about the subject. By taking a quick glance, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents seems to be saying things, such as:

Unofficial movements, ideologies or philosophies within religions are generally not capitalized [...] Philosophies, theories, movements, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter

Hope this helps! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure. If you think a {{request quotation}} tag is appropriate, then go for it. I do think some citation should be found, though, and applied to all articles describing Buer. I support the MOS ruling, but the reason why I think it may be best to keep it capitalized is because it appears to be capitalized in the quotation from which it originates. I assumed that when it comes to the Medieval and Renaissance-style overcapitalization, it should be retained. The MOS isn't very clear on this. In any case, whatever you think is best is what I'd recommend, since you're probably more knowledgeable on what to do in these sorts of situations, and I think your suggestions have thus far been valid. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

MRSA

Hi JS! This week I read a newspaper article about a medieval recipe for some kind of eye-disease, that appears to work against the MRSA bacteria. I've forgotten the name of the authors involved, but the reipe at least contained onions (and garlic, if I remember well). Let's see: medieval garlic onions - yes! You're going to like it. Don't abuse it at the Ayurveda talkpage! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Hi there! Do I sense some sort of sarcasm with respect to the current status Ayurveda, or are you implying me that I'd have made some silly remarks at the Ayurveda Talk Page? ;-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarcasm, me? Noooooo.... just a sense of irony: providing you info on the merits of ancient herbal wisdom, while I do tend to side with the sceptics. Too nice an irony not to mention this information to you. And it is interesting, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Hehe, I never understood the difference between "sarcasm" and "irony" :-D

Anyway, you got me hooked on this one! I made a little research into subject the subject - for my own pleasure of course - and it seems that in the Finnish legislation we have three classifications (the English translation might be more or less compromised) for different kind of health-related products:

1. Natural products (fin. luontaistuoteet): these products lack of appropriate scientific research, and they are legislated under the "Food Laws". Not being classified as a medicine, though, does not guarantee their safety.
2. Herbal medicinal products (fin. rohdosvalmisteet), also called as medicine-like products: these products require a special sales permission from the Finnish Medicines Society. For these products, there are basically three requirements: 1) one should be capable to show that the herbal medicinal product on hand has been in use of mainstream medicine for at least 30 years (15 of which in the European Union); 2) it should meet the requirements set by Pharmacopoeia and the prevailing medicinal standards, and 3) otherwise, the requirements set for actual drugs are to be applied.[80][81]
3. Medicinal products, drugs (fin. lääkkeet): with this one, the same sketch as in any other Western country.

I don't know if I would classify myself as a "skeptic" in regards to number 1, nor pro or con. After all, there have been products that have been speedily shifted from category 1 to category 3 when things, such as a) serious adverse effects have emerged (e.g. Perforate St John's-wort), b) the active substances have been found to have a scientific mechanism (e.g. Valerian), c) the active substance is way more potential that has been thought / the potential of the active ingredient hadn't been really studied earlier (e.g. Griffonia simplicifolia), and so on. Well, the MERDS compliance of sources is a whole different thing...

Neverthless, I think there might be a plethora of potential herbal remedies out there - both in good and bad - but what I think as we are editing an encyclopedia, is that we should stick to some real sound MEDRS sources :-) As said before - or at least on the basis of Finnish legislation - natural products are of a kind that has not been researched yet properly, and we should merely wait for any scientific summaries - if any - to pop up on the efficacy of these substances.

As you mentioned garlic, for example, if one is eating garlic, let's say, for cold feet, but an extensive study on the health-effects of garlic shows up that "garlic really doesn't have any effect on cold feet" ... well maybe stop eating garlic for cold feet then? :-D

I kind of like the Finnish system though: if some natural product, even despite of the lack of scientific studies, has been in favour of mainstream medical professionals for at least 30 years (15 of which in the European Union), the substance might be "promoted" to a higher status (fin. rohdosvalmiste), "herbal medicinal product". Well, that probably ain't any use in Wikipedia, but still. :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, not really "promoted", as it brings significant additional costs for the manufacturers, and what I read from the papers is that the strictening legislation is putting many manufacturers out of business. The licensing process is quite an expensive one, you see...? :O Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK at List of Internet encyclopedias

I can't tell if this was an accident caused by uncareful use of a script or edit warring, but please stop delinking Wikipedia at List of Internet encyclopedias. Also, regarding the other delinking there, please note that WP:OVERLINK explicitly creates an exception: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead."

Putting the Wikipedia link aside for a moment... Regarding the language column, it might make sense for us to delink the whole column as not sufficiently helpful, but otherwise I think it should all of them should be linked for stylistic reasons. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, User:Rhododendrites. Edit warring, wow... Can you please clarify what content you feel like being edit warred right now, exactly? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

first delink of "Wikipedia", then I restored and you removed it a second time, followed by this talk page thread Talk:List of Internet encyclopedias#Linking Wikipedia, and then again today delinking it a third time. That it was amid several other changes makes me think it could've been an oversight due to use of the script, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies. I didn't mean to edit over that one again. I thought I saved the linking of [[Wikipedia]], but apparently it missed the second mention (see, I manually tried to recover and the 1st one is still there). Thanks for the notice, User:Rhododendrites! Aside from my mistake the content is totally different, so I was not edit warring. Sorry for the inconvenience! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok that's what I thought might have happened. No worries. What do you think about the other matter? In your opinion do you think it makes the most sense to have all of the languages wikilinked, none of them, or just the first of each? I think there's a MOS-based justification for any of the three. To me one of the first two is preferred for primarily visual reasons. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: This is a complicated one :-)
The article in question is rather special since, as you correctly pointed out, according to MOS "...links may be repeated in ... tables..." Nevertheless, the guideline also says "...but if helpful for readers...," Hmm... I understand your cosmetic concerns though. But on the other hand, I don't think that linking to [[English]] 142 times in the article is a good idea either. I guess this is not what the current MOS had in mind? Heh :-)
Anyway, I'd feel inclined to options one and two as well. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK: "non-succulent stems and leaves"

You wrote 'linking to "succulent plants", where the article doesn't even really discuss the non-succulent'. The succulent hyperlink was added to aid those wanting to research further. It does not fit the defined WP:OVERLINK criteria at all. Some researchers may not know what is exactly meant by "succulent" or the converse, "non-succulent", good articles link to these concepts. Perhaps you'd feel better if there was a Wiktionary link there instead? Either way, again, it does not match the criteria you use as the reason to remove the link. Nor does it fall under the Aspects of overlinking listed at WP:OVERLINK-crisis. I'll add that I myself am no fan of overlinked articles. If you find some other reason the link should not be there, feel free to discuss. 72.234.220.38 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi 72.234.220.38! Thanks for your message. I am sorry if I was too unclear with my edit. The reason why I removed the link is that the destination article succulent plant is only very tangentially related to the original context that is being linked at Raphanus raphanistrum. See, the closest that article Succulent plant gets, goes as: "A further difficulty is that plants are not either succulent or non-succulent."[82] That's the only time it mentions the term "non-succulent". IMHO, that doesn't really help the reader to understand what the "non-succulent stems and leaves" actually mean.

You are right though, I mistakenly referred to [[WP:OVERLINK]] whereas I should have been pertaining to [[MOS:LINK]] in general. I still don't think that linking to article Succulent plant is well-grounded, but a Wiktionary link like you suggested would be a lot more appropriate, I think. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit at Raphanus raphanistrum, 72.234.220.38![83] I think that'll do the trick, cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

May 2015

Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Gyroscope without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Oh boy, my apologies. I must have mistaken that the old formatting, "the principles of angular momentum", that I've already delinked a few times was restored. That's not the case though, and I see that I removed the wikilink quite hastily. You are right though, the current version is correct and you justly reverted my edit. Thanks for the notice! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Google Books

Please do not add links to Google Books. Wikipedia does not favor one venue for viewing books online over another (we don't link to Amazon.com either). Both Amazon and Google Books links are provided by the ISBN link. This is how we avoid favoritism. You may see these links on other articles, but this does not make it correct. Skyerise (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, Skyerise! I just left a message on your Talk Page like one minute ago :-) Anyway, Google Books are largely used in Wikipedia, and as far as I am concerned, there is no policy making any restrictions on this. On the contrary, whenever there is a source available online, editors are encouraged to link to it. I also placed a {{Request quotation}} tag, which is perfectly okay to use whenever a source is not available to other users (the source might not be available online, it can be behind a paywall, etc.). A decent quote from the source helps other readers to verify the material. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I retained your quotation request. Please do not start edit warring over Google links. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to edit war over that matter. I still think though, that Google Books validates as a source really well. that Maybe we can ask for an opinion of an experienced editor or an administrator, don't you think? I might be wrong though, but that way we would get some clarity over this matter. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Book sources. One big problem is, Google Books is regional. Many who click the link will not be able to verify anything because they are not allowed to view books on US Google Books. By using the ISBN, it takes a few more clicks, but it is more generally verifiable. Users can select a source that they know will serve them, then go to the appropriate page. Also, WP is not only an online resource: you can export the page in PDF, articles may be added to "Wikipedia Books", and there can be print editions of WP in which selected articles may appear. The Google Book URLs are extremely long but will be formatted to appear in the references. It makes the references section much less readable.... but go ask around. Admins have no special role, just special powers. These things are generally resolved by consensus... you could ask about it on the article talk page, there may be other regular editors around... Skyerise (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Skyerise! I was discussing with a fellow editor at User talk:Ogress#Religion in South Korea while I noticed that he is editing Vajravārāhī as well. I asked whether we should - in his opinion - include a URL to Google Books in sources, so let me summarize a few thoughts that I came up with during the discussion:

1. You pertained to Wikipedia:Book Sources. It doesn't set any restrictions on providing direct links to Google Books, nor does it imply that such links should be avoided
2. Google Books URL helps a lot in verifying the material. If the material is not displayed at some regions, it's not a reason to remove the source, just as it's not a reason to remove a printed source if it's not available at your local library
3. I didn't find any policy or guideline implying that we should avoid linking there since it would be some sort of "favoritism"
4. I understand that you have a different philosophy on this question, and you argue for providing the mere ISBN so that the readers are able to choose between Google Books, Amazon, etc. I think that's your own interpretation though, and not really supported by any policy or guideline
5. Comparing Google Books to Amazon isn't really appropriate in my opinion, since Google displays the material for free whereas Amazon is a commercial market place
6. I also don't quite understand how it would be better to force the reader to go through a separate Wikipedia ISBN search before being able to access the source

Of course, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong since that might be the case as well :-D Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 29. JimRenge (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting conversation you linked there, User:JimRenge. Like Wtmitchell, I also place a lot of links to Google Books. And as mentioned in the discussion, we even have our very Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books. Of course, this doesn't say whether it's good or bad to link there. If we give a second of thought to the legal side though, I find it easy to concur with a comment written by Moonriddengirl:

I have been presuming that Google books (giant corporation and all) had achieved proper licensing for its displays.

I think ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ also makes a good point there:

At the very least I can't see how it could be a problem to deep link to a public domain work on Google Books. Google gets an HTTP_Referrer header when someone clicks on a WP link; they can just shut off or redirect this kind of traffic - to any page they desire - if they want to have more control of the eyeballs. (But they don't do that, so I'm inclined to think that they don't mind deep linking or they even want deep linking. There's no reason they even needed to make deep linking possible in the application, but they did.) It seems like a horrendous waste to me if you're actually doing your research on Google Books and you have the link immediately available to cut and paste, to not do that and force a WP reader to search through the book to find your reference. One of the major benefits of Wikipedia is often being able to immediately and rapidly check the citations of an article, IMO.

Thanks for the link Jim! :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with linking to Google Books for pre-1923 or public domain books either. Skyerise (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, Ogress, JimRenge, and everyone else paying interest to the subject! I asked for an opinion from an experienced editor, Cullen328, and he said that: " I agree with you and disagree with Skyerise on this matter. There is a big difference between a link to an informational Google Books page showing the text of the book page plus bibliographic information, and an Amazon page for the book which is purely a commercial tool for Amazon to sell a copy of the book. A Google Books link is entirely appropriate in the URL field of the "cite books" template (or alternate citation styles) while adding the ISBN number to the template allows readers to obtain the most detailed information about obtaining the book, either by purchase through a mass-market commercial bookseller, or a used book store, or through a library." The answer in full can be found from User talk:Cullen328#Google books. I hope this helped to clear things up! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I still believe it is both unnecessary and cluttersome, though I will defer to consensus on an article-by-article basis. In other words, if you want to add them on Vajravarahi, please get a consensus on the talk page first. Don't assume that there are no other regular editors of the article! Skyerise (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it may be helpful to add a google books url, if the preview shows the relevant content. In case there is no preview, or no preview of the relevant content, the link would be clutter and just waste the time of our readers. JimRenge (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I should have read the guideline first before answering. For citing Google Books, please see WP:BOOKLINKS. So yes, we can use Google Books links; and no, one does not need to seek for consensus for using Google Books links. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

When Moonriddengirl wrote "I have been presuming that Google books (giant corporation and all) had achieved proper licensing for its displays" she was correct. Google allows each publisher to decide how much to display: nothing, a snippet, one page, several pages, and so on. So anything displayed by Google Books is with agreement by the publisher. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

MiszaBot

Hi Guru; I've taken the liberty to add MiszaBot; so your talkpage will be archived automatically. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan! It's alright, thanks for your nice gesture! I admit that I've been rather lazy when it comes to archiving Talk Page posts. On the other hand, I don't mind the transparency it brings along as all the posts are exposed to public scrutinizing. :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: oh, and I love the picture! :-D Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Google Book URLs

Please revert your changes and get a consensus for this at Talk:Vajravārāhī. That's what I agreed to: on an article-by-article basis after showing there is a consensus to add them for the current article by requesting input on the article talk page. You haven't discussed it on the article talk page yet. Skyerise (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, I did not agree to and will not agree to reverting to <ref>-tag style references from {{sfn}} style references. Skyerise (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you not read the section User talk:Jayaguru-Shishya#Google Books above? No consensus is needed for a standard WP linking guideline. For linking to Google Books, please see WP:BOOKLINKS. So far, you are not only standing against four other editors opinion, but also the guideline mentioned earlier. Your actions would already constitute a clear edit warring case, but assuming good faith I ask you nicely to stop. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, changes to reference style requires consensus. See WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." The way this is worded, it would apply to both the type of referencing templates used as well as whether or not to use deep linked Google Book URLs. Please seek consensus for such changes on the article talk page prior to implementing them. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, your editing is becoming highly disruptive. This has nothing to do with WP:CITEVAR. Your latest edit warring on the sources link[84] just killed the functionality of the link - again. Please click on the Simmer-Brown link on the references section and see if it'll take you to the appropriate place on sources section. No, it doesn't. Please restore the "Citation|..." template so that the link will start to work again. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. I originally used "cite book" with "ref=harv". You changed it to "citation" instead for no reason, which is prohibited by WP:CITEVAR, so I changed it back to "cite book" not realizing you had also removed the "ref=harv". Personally, I find your editing disruptive, reverting to previous versions undoing undisputed improvements to the citations rather than simply adding what you wished to add. Skyerise (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

And yes, it has everything to do with WP:CITEVAR. The decision whether or not to include Google links is a decision about citation style. What you verified above is that there is no general prohibition on Google Book links. Fine, they are allowable. But whether to include them or not on an individual article is a citation-style decision, and per CITEVAR, it needs to be discussed on the article talk page and a consensus reached before making the change. So please do so in the future before adding such links on an article which does not have them. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

What should I do with you, Skyerise... You've made already seven more or less agreeable edits with respect to the cites[85][86][87][88][89][90][91]. This is hardly about any missing "ref=harv", this is about you standing against four other editors and the WP guideline in regards of citing Google Books. You kept blindly removing the just links without any discussion at the article Talk Page. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't get to "do" anything with me. That's a pretty offensive kind of statement. All you had to do was discuss first on the article talk page and get a consensus before making changes as I politely asked you to do above. You chose not to. In the future, please consider placing a higher value on the article page consensus process. This has not been discussed on the article talk page, only on your user talk page. It is unknown how many regular editors you left out-of-the-loop because you refuse to have the discussion on the article talk page, which the regular editors of the article are watching, instead pretending that it's just as good to have it on your talk page, which the other regular editors are probably not watching. In the future, please conduct discussions involving changing an article on the article talk page where it belongs. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and here is the state of the article on 21 April 2015 immediately before you began most recently to edit it. Note that it does not have Google Book links. I did not remove them, it was you who added them. As there is no discussion on the talk page indicating a consensus to do so, I was completely correct to remove them, and then go ahead and fix other problems like the broken isbn, duplication of the same reference, etc. I still request that you start the talk page discussion about the Google Books links. Otherwise I may very well remove them again in a few days. Skyerise (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand: there is no consensus needed for including Google Books links. Period. Please read the discussion above, as well as the specific guideline I linked. Indeed, what should I do with you? How come you find that "pretty offensive kind of statement"?

Oh, you also said: "Also, I did not agree to and will not agree to reverting to <ref>-tag style references from {{sfn}} style references. " Did I try that? Did you read my Edit Summaries? Although my "middle-step" might have been highly unnecessary, you saw me restoring the {{šfn}} style references, as clearly stated in my ES'. What did you do? Continue to edit war by reverting me.

Skyerise, Skyerise... what should I do with you? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. Adding Google Books links is a change to the citation style. CITEVAR is very clear that you need to get consensus. Why are you so opposed to simply taking the time to get consensus on the talk page? I am happy to allow consensus to be implemented once it has been reached. There is no deadline. You don't have to add any URLs right this minute You are also violating WP:BRD, the "bold, revert, discuss" process. You were bold, I reverted you, where's the subsequent discussion on the article talk page which is what WP:BRD required you to start back in April when you were reverted??? Certainly it's clear that there is a disagreement between us. The only way to resolve that is to involve other regular editors of that specific article by starting a discussion on the article talk page, but you simply refuse to do so, even though to do so is not difficult and causes you no harm whatsoever. Skyerise (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR is discussing the different citation styles. It mentions "parenthetical and <ref> tags and "the style preferred by one academic discipline vs. another" as examples. Both citation styles are compatible with providing a link; the former within the first reference, the latter at the sources section. {{sfn}}, at the sources section. WP:CITEVAR is not discussing the same matter. In all of the systems, source links (including Google Books links) can be included. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I took a look at Vajravārāhī; am I correct that the discussion is about adding links to Google books within the article text? As far as I can see, adding those links at the sources-section makes for easier editing; Google-links within the text make for long references, which you have to look carefully again and again to see where the ref starts, and where it ends. Also, Google books links may work differently in different countries; personally, I try to avoid them. So far for my personal preferences. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What you seem to fail to understand, Jayaguru-Shishya, is that there is no such thing as a "free edit" which is above objection or consensus. WP:BRD is very simple: You make an addition or change to the article, another editor reverts it, you start a discussion on the article talk page, reach a consensus, then implement the consensus. The status quo is the original version of the article, before the disputed change. The editor who, instead of Discussing after BR, instead reverts, is the editor who starts to edit war. In this case, that would be you. The status quo of the article is without Google Books links. To move to having Google Books links over the objections of another editor, you need to show consensus to add them on the article talk page. Just open the discussion there. If you'd done that when you should have, you'd probably already have your consensus. A consensus of editors on your talk page who are not regular editors of the article is meaningless with respect to consensus on a particular article. Skyerise (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, the Vajravarahi article uses the {{sfn}} style, so the links are added to the Sources -section, and I agree with you that it makes it for easier editing. Therefore, it won't mess up the article's editing space in any manner, and for the <ref> citation style, one can always name the refs in order to avoid excess repetition of the links. According to WP:CITEVAR however, both citation styles allow providing Google Books links, and this is the practice with many of the Featured articles and Good articles. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Skyerise, I didn't take the discussion to the article Talk Page since you took it already here,[92][93] but I will discuss the issues there in the future. After having a few days off from Wikipedia and giving a second thought about my actions at Vajravarahi, I could remember these wise words by user BullRangifer at article Acupuncture (boldings added):[94]

There is nothing in my comments which allows for continued edit warring, so the block for edit warring is entirely proper. Lack of collaboration is part of the problem here. Trying to force one's edits through, against the objections of other editors, never works. [...] I hope that Klocek learns something from this. One can even be 100% correct, and even have all the RS on one's side, and still get blocked. I'm not implying that's the case here, but telling it like it is. One must collaborate or one has no success.

I admit that I've been rather stubborn by sticking to the WP policies and guidelines. And no matter whether I've been right or not, we have still engaged ourselves in an edit war, and on my behalf I'd like to apologize for that. Your objection with regards to including Google Books links, however, still remains rather unclear to other editors[95][96][97], and I'd like to ask you to express your reasoning in a more understandable manner. The matter is currently being discussed at Talk:Vajravārāhī#Google Books links, and I hope we can both engage in discssion there. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

restoring comment and then commenting on it

despicable. 20:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I can see that you made this post on my Talk Page[98], User:Jytdog. I can see the time stamp but not your name. Why did you leave out your name, Jytdog? And what is this all about? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I found the information and added it back

Hey Jaya! I found the information on clinical practice guidelines that got deleted out of QG's restoration and just added it back myself. You might keep an eye on it though, in case a certain editor finds it objectionable. LesVegas (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! So that's the material that did not get restored[99]? Thanks LesVegas. As I said on your Talk Page, I've been trying rather a hard time trying to follow the discussion[100]. Of course, I'll have to take a closer look at the material first, but I try to get back to it probably tomorrow. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sanctions

Hi Jayaguru-Shishya. I had actually come to this page with the intention of placing a 1RR restriction on you, but I haven't been able to bring myself to do it. Here is the text that I had prepared to put here:

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You are restricted to 1RR on the acupuncture article. This means you may not make more than 1 revert per 24 hour period. Upon reviewing your edits at the article I found participation in larger revert wars with occasionally "pointy" reverts. In all honesty I was on the fence on whether to leave an edit restriction or a warning, but this pushed me over the edge. On the bright side it seems you have come a long way since Kww's informal ban of last year, but I want to stop the team edit warring on the acupuncture article. I'll also remind you of the need to stay away from alt-med administrative noticeboard discussions per Kww's ban, not that it's been a problem, but because Kww hasn't put an expiration date on or withdrawn those sanctions. These sanctions are applied under the Standard Discretionary Sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee and will be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#Complementary and Alternative Medicine - Acupuncture, and will automatically expire in 6 months, but may be appealed at after a reasonable amount of time with good behavior WP:AN or WP:AE. In reality, though, you might want to stick to a voluntary 1RR or even 0RR on this page, even after the sanctions expire.

I think what held me back is that I had not personally asked you to change any of your behavior. So now I am asking: would you be willing to abide by a self-imposed WP:1RR on the acupuncture article and to avoid pointy reverts, controversial reverts, and participation in group revert wars? This is voluntary so you don't have to agree to it...however, it is probably something you should be doing anyway with the state of things at the article right now, especially with the other discretionary sanctions I have placed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Adjwilley, and thanks for your notice. I was being rather blunt at the article, and I'd like to apologize for that. I agree with you: pointy, controversial and group reverts are something certainly to be avoided. I also acknowledge that instead of reverting material, one should primarily seek to discuss the edits at the article Talk Page and solve the problems through collaboration, and that's what I am intended to do, not just at Acupuncture, but at other Wikipedia articles as well.

Anyway, as I have seen the contributions by the new editors that have chimed in recently, I am getting rather optimistic about the future. I hope things will settle down there at the article now. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)