User talk:LhunGrub

Welcome

Hello, LhunGrub! Ghost 18:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

Getting Started
Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

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

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from

welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Jess· Δ ♥ 02:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Madhyamaka

I very much welcome your additions to the Madhyamaka article, however, your statement about 'the distillation of all of Buddhism' really has to be rewritten. See my discussion on the talk page! 20040302 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Madhyamaka, Talk:Madhyamaka#Gorampa.2FGeluk_Polemic_replacement". Thank you. --20040302 (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Shaivism. It is especially important to provide an edit summary, or a note on the talk page, when removing sourced text. Sunray (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without

reliable sources, as you did to Madhyamaka. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

More on Madhyamaka

Thank you for your reply on the article talk page. I see that you have again added un-sourced changes to the article. Please see my detailed response to you at Talk: Madhyamaka. Note that one of the most important policies for article editors is

consensus. As you seem to have good knowledge of this subject, I hope you will stick around and work on this. Sunray (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

October 2011

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Śūnyatā. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made this statement: "Therefore Mahayana's Śūnyatā, but not Theravada, preserves the original attitude of

What Wikipedia is not). While your idea is something that might be discussed in the body of the article, with reference to several citations from different traditions, Wikipedia should avoid claims that one tradition "preserves the original attitude of early Buddhism" and another does not. Sunray (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't believe you understand NPOV. To say that Germans invaded France during World War II is an academic fact, not a violation of NPOV. Provide an academic source that suggests that Theravada's aggregates are indeed empty. LhunGrub (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an

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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

Ghost 20:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts. Our

policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. The general rule is "one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block." Sunray (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]