A barnstar for you!
|The Barnstar of Diligence|
|Thanks for all your work cleaning up Wikipedia Buddhism articles and working on so many citations, references, and external links. This type of editing does make a real difference, and it is appreciated. Tengu800 16:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nanto Rikushū, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huayan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
|The Buddhism Barnstar|
|Your name pops-up may times; thanks for all the good work you're doing! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)|
If you could add 2 sentences about their political wing that is represented in the diet, their 30 000 membership, the name of their (in 2006) leader and quote his views about the taboo of discussing a Japanese atomic bomb (cited in the the NYT), the article should be a stub and pass the controls. I think the organization is notable and the information is sufficiently referenced. JimRenge (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Teamwork Barnstar|
|cheers Catflap08 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)|
Hello JimRenge: no problem with your removal of credentials. You are in fact correct on this point. Thank you for all the great work towards enhanced accuracy and utility that you have been doing since you joined Wiki. Warm wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
God in Buddhism
- Sorry, I always try to help, but some months ago, when I saw this article for the first time, I decided it would be a waste of time for me to edit this one or to add it to my watchlist. Perhaps you can ask Joshua for a 3rd opinion. (Yes, the sutras cited, are primary sources.) JimRenge (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you could chip in on the Nichiren article. I guess Ltdan means no harm but it was so much hard work to get the article to it's (still not perfect) state. I would hate getting nitty gritty sectarian issues blow it out of proportion yet again. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- I just counted the number of reverts, it might be helpful to discuss his text in more detail. I read the text in Buswell first and half of the Stone/Tricycle Interview (all I could get). I will comment on the talk page. JimRenge (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. I saw it nearly in real time and thought it was a funny mistake. Good work at Buddha nature, I don`t miss the Prajnaparamita section. JimRenge (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Religion in Norway
- Dear JimRenge, following reliable source gives an estimate of 3.7% for Muslims in Norway.
When it comes to image, I think its not wp:UNDUE because image of a Church is also present on the article. It just depicts the religious diversity of Norway. Look at Religion in Guinea-Bissau, it is an image of a church in the lead despite the fact that Christians are only 10% of total population. I hope you will understand. Happy Ramadhan.Septate (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- When it comes to religion in Slovakia, the source which I stated is pretty much reliable because it gives a brief description of Muslims in Slovak lands. I got this source from Islam in Slovakia which states that The number of Muslims is unknown but there might be 5000 Muslims in Slovakia. Looks nothing wrong with it. Thanks again.Septate (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Please stop wikihounding me. Atleast inform me before you make any reverts. Take the example of religion in Kazakhstan. I have provided source. It was your responsibility to ask me to provide source but you simply reverted. Furthermore, your edit summaries at religion in Macedonia were deceptive because there was no image of mosque in Judaism section. If image of mosque was looking too big to you then you should have edited its capitation instead of removing whole image. Use common sense!Septate (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Feel free to discuss specific edits on the corresponding article talk pages. Please read the comments of several editors on your talk page regarding WP:OR, unconstructive editing, systematic removal of Hinduism, violating the three-revert rule etc. I don`t think that the many corrections, reverts, comments and warnings regarding your edits are wikihounding. If you feel you have good reasons to complain, you might consider following the processes outlined in WP:DR. JimRenge (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- You have still not responded to my question at Talk:Religion in the Czech republic. I am waiting.Septate (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Please have a look at Religion in Liberia, Religion in Somalia and Religion in Ethiopia. A user named as HudaSatria is changing estimates with out proper sources. See his edit history . Since I am a mobile user, I have to do reverts manually which is extremely difficult. I have reverted his edits on Religion in Tanzania and Religion in Kenya and also left a message on his talk page but he left no respose. Also please tell me if Joshua project is a reliable source for statisticd about religion, since it is a christian evangelical website.Thanks.Septate (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have reverted his unexplained change of statistical data (not in source) at Religion in Liberia, the other problematic edits of HudaSatria were also reverted. Using the Joshua project as a source for statistical data does not seem to be a good choice. I would prefer neutral, non-sectarian sources. JimRenge (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
"Somebody's watching you"
- Sorry, I have realized that this was a good faith edit. My mistake, I have self-reverted. JimRenge (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VictoriaGrayson/sandbox/Dorje_Shugden_controversyVictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Dr. BR Ambedkar
My last change,
Hello Jim. Hope you are fine. You reverted one of my change that I did on B.R. Ambedkar page. . Just want to inform you that my last change was not against consensus or was a laundry list. So please read the difference before you revert it again. Thanks.Akhil Bharathan (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
question about content.
Hello Jim Renge, How are you? I asked a question from you Dr.B.R Ambedkar's talk page about the lead. I am of the view that the sentence of his concept as a Bodhisattva should be in lead and rest of his things are already covered in body. I don't think there should be a problem now. Answer me now. Akhil.bharathan (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your last comment on the BR Ambedkar talk page was no question. If you have more questions about the interpretation of WP:LEAD in this context, you might ask the experienced editors at the teahouse. JimRenge (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
this is about the edit war.
Why do you keep changing my addition of word 'economist' to the BR ambedkar page. He was an well renouned economist and he made sure India will follow socio economic policy according to the constitution. please give a valid reason at earliest otherwise kindly be a gentleman and let me edit the page peacefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutvickpedamkar (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is no consensus on the talk page for the addition of more professions in the lead. JimRenge (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thanks for pointing out good practice on the Wikipedia talk section!
Hi Jim, My sincerest apologies - I mis-clicked on "Helpsome". No intention whatsoever of "bad practice"! Again thank you for your help as I negotiate through wiki pages! Peace to you ~ Maura Kelley— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maura Kelley (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Jim, the message posted to Helpsome's talk by me goes as follows: Helpsome, The information you removed was simply a neutral reporting of expert professional Wildlife Ecologists and Biologists' scientific analysis. The reports are professional and public documents, and the public has a right to know what the scientists in the field of their expertise have to say (I believe). I request that you please check with your supervisors before making such a judgement decision as to delete their information. This is in NO WAY meant to be any kind of PROMOTION. Perhaps they can explain to you directly if needed? Thank you, Maura Kelley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maura Kelley (talk • contribs) 19:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- You forgot to copy-paste: "Please send me your email address so I can have the professional wildlife experts and their attorneys contact you." JimRenge (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, glad to explain it. If you look at the article on Undue burden test, there is a cite from a recent court case, in turn citing a prior decision, that characterizes the Undue burden test in exactly those words in quotes within quotes: "Middle way". If you want to edit it down, that's fine with me. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Connection Similes Lotus Sutra / Prodigal Son
I agree that the comparison between Chapter 4 of the Lotus sutra and the simile of the prodigal son in the form I had written it might not fit into the teachings section of the article. I have extended the article of the Prodigal son, drawing on the sources you cited. However, I think there should also be some linking / connection between the articles so that the reader of the Lotus sutra article is aware of this similarity. Additionally, the parable is currently not even mentioned in the sutra article at all. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathedra87 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think this comparison might better be mentioned in an article "Parable of the poor son (Buddhism)". In the Lotus Sutra article it might be perceived as giving undue weight to misconceptions about one of the 7 (Skt. version: 8) parables in the LS. JimRenge (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Tathāgatagarbha sūtras - Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra
- Thanks, I preferred to cite another private website of Dr. Tony Page: English translation of excerpts from the Angulimaliya Sutra by Stephen Hodge, year unknown, p. 20.
- The "Texts" section (subsections: Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra, Anunatva Apurnatva Nirdeśa, Angulimaliya Sūtra) uses religious texts as primary sources without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them ... Similar problems: Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra / central teachings and Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdesa. JimRenge (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Bodhidharma edit warning
Hi, you recently warned a user about the edit they made to the Bodhidharma page. Their edit was not purposely disruptive. They meant to type 7aum Arivu, which translates as "7th Sense." This is a fictionalized portrayal of Bodhidharma's life. I just thought you might like to know. I personally feel the movie is too trivial to add to the page anyway. Best regards, --Ghostexorcist (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think the revert of their edit was justified because it did not improve the article and did not conform with WP:lead, but you are right, the warning was too much (self-revert). Thank you very much for your feedback, I`ll think twice in similar situations. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Ashoka and Buddhism
Read Historian R. Thapar's Book given there. It's an argument, not an assertion. There is no God in Buddhism but Ashoka called Himself as the "Beloved of the Gods".  Read this to know that there is no God or Gods in Buddhism. Ashoka's personal religion is very doubtful and that must be clearly stated. I'll wait for your reply. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have copied your comment to Talk:Ashoka and will answer there. JimRenge (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- He also apparently is sockpuppetting as User:Wesige putha: Diff Ogress smash! 18:31, 25 August 2014
- I'm a cannibal too in auswitch so? Kalakannija (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like Kalakannija may indeed some mental heakth problems; I'd prefer to approach him in a friendly way. Might be better for his well-being. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
About page Bodu Bala Sena
Dear Jim, There are lot of incorrect information about Bodu Bala Sena page! please try to find correct and true infomation.Don't use anti bodu bala sena websites and news as all references.Quality of wikipedia becoming low from these articles!Use fair,true news articles and websites as references and edit that page! hope you will attention to this matter. thankyou! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randeepa (talk • contribs) 06:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear Jim, I like to share my thoughts on Bodu Bala Sena(BBS). BBS is National Socialist Movement(Antisemitic) in Sri lanka fellow of UPFA the use of violent intimidation to manipulate local economic activity, acting represent for the liberation of Buddhists & make offense on other religions . My-self attended a BBS convention held At Japan-Sri Lanka Alliance temple @Kushinagar. They revealed, they associates with zen NGOs manipulating buddhists as Aryans to dominate nobility among Sinhalese the majority of the country. I believe thy have a capitalistic approach in Economy of Sri Lanka.Amanussya 21:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankumaraya (talk • contribs)
Solatido and his blog
Hi, I noticed that you've removed Solatido's blog which was being used as a reference on Ashoka. FYI, he appears to have been promoting his blog (and what appears to be a self-published book) on Wikipedia since 2008. What can be done about this/Where do I report this?--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for notifying me, I did not realize the problem. The blog and the book are not WP:RS, the book is definitely self-published.
- I have removed some of the links in some (but not all) articles and have added a warning on his talk page.
- "What can be done about this/Where do I report this?": You may check his edits (as far as I understand, he changed his user name) and remove SPS links, SPS-referenced/unsourced text or text that does not comply with WP:NPOV, WP:OR.
- He is possibly ignorant of the relevant WP-policies: if he re-introduces SPS or introduces new SPS, these should be reverted and additional warnings given on his talk page. If he does not stop after being informed/warned of policy violations several times, you can report him at ANI. JimRenge (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed his book references and blog links from ~9 pages. I might be mistaken, but I think that that's all of them. I've also excised quotes from his book that were included in a couple of articles. Hope this is fine and thanks for the procedural pointers :) Cheers.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the not, I wasn't careful with the reverting or undoing and i mad a mistake with keeping reverting but the thing the user:Rajatantra kept changing the numbers and removing sources. Have nice day :-).--Jobas (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- I also reverted him - but not 4 times. I just did'nt want to see you blocked. :) JimRenge (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Anderson (1999) and Vetter (1988) can both be found at the web as pdf. Especially Vetter is a "must"-read; Bronkhorst (1993) is also very good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tip, I already thought it might help to read the references ... BTW many of the references/books lack a page number. JimRenge (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is the link to the treasurehouse: A handful of Leaves. I first reworked the article, copy-editing the references and notes; then I removed stuff; and then I was able to write out my thoughts. No time yet for page-numbers; first the overall story. Which is fascinating, and pretty amazing: why isn't Vetter in any popular book on Buddhism? He's revolutionary! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- The first one clearly states that "the Amitabha oracle is a game..." so it isn't actually an informative link. That second one definitely doesn't belong. Right at the beginning of that "almanac" is says "(taken from discussions on Internet forums about Yoga, God, religion, mysticism and spirituality)" Number 10 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID lists discussion forums as things not to link to. If this is just an aggregate from various forums, it amounts to the same thing: linking to a forum discussion. Helpsome (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Buddha's birth place
How can your revert the changes in Gautam Buddha birth placd. All over the world knows that Nepal has the birth place and why should wiki has it written also in India. Few of the so called indian archeologist with the help of local government build similar artificial monuments that are lying in Lumbini. They have even named it kapilbastu and tomorrow you will write that Kapilbastu is in India. This article violates the belief of the nepali people and truth. Thank you. So kindly delete any words there saying gautam buddha was born in india.Cite error: There are
<ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipuhere4u (talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, editors should try to present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. (see WP:VERIFY)
- You have removed reliable sourced text because you disagree with its content. I have reverted your edit because I think it did not comply with wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. It also seemed to ignore the discussion at the article talk page. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Best wishes for a happy holiday season
|Happy Holiday Cheer|
|Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!Hafspajen (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)|
Reversion of contribution to Shikoku Pilgrimage
I wondered about the relevance of your reason for reverting away my contribution to the Lead of Shingon Pilgrimage. The last paragraph reads: "Attesting to the popularity of the Shikoku pilgrimage, from the eighteenth century a number of smaller imitative versions have been established. These include a 150 kilometres (93 mi) circuit on Shōdo Island northeast of Takamatsu; a 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) course on the grounds of Ninna-ji in Kyoto; a route on the Chita Peninsula near Nagoya; and circuits in Edo and Chiba Prefecture."
I added to this paragraph: "Outside of Japan, another version is on the Hawai'ian island of Kaua'i."
Your comment in reverting this was: "please see WP:LEAD". But the Lead is by far the longest section in the article, and my contribution is closely related to the information immediately preceding. Would you rather that I start a new section for the one sentence that I added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrykoen (talk • contribs) 01:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for starting a new section: Imitative versions. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The added sentence seemed to add more details to the lead. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- PS: how about archivating your talkpages? User talk:JimRenge/Archive 2013 Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC) No, thanks but I need one more sandbox or subpage.
- I read the section when I had seen your comment: "The fact that "karma" wasn't a major concept in early Buddhism seems to be incomprehensible for my critics;". I think the word fact might provoke Robert to reply with one of his essays.
- Reading the section in karma in buddhism, it rather seems to be a conclusion of several authors. :) JimRenge (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Jim, you said you wanted to be notified for any ANI. Well I haven't started one yet, was too busy undoing vandalism yesterday. The edit you reverted yesterday, the photo of a supposed triggering event was reverted as I am sure you know. I had reverting fatigue and didnt revert him.
THAT particular photo cannot stay, given the WP:OR title that the editor 126.96.36.199 made up, as I have explained on his talk page. The editor is unwilling to discuss anything n his talk page or the Pegida talk page.I think the person just wants to have a photo, since there's one for the counter demonstrations.This could be the olive branch for a compromise; the reversals made him mad causing him to make WP:PA- calling us "paid British editors", to my big surprise.
Second problem in my view: missing citations for the bar graph chart numerical values. the sources need to be next to the data points. Formal issue maybe, but I am unwilling to repair this because I do not know which citation is for which data point. Can you please help, for example with a message to the guy or if he is unwilling to discuss, revert and report if 3RR? --Wuerzele (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the image description was fringe. I have commented on commons on the description. PEGIDA sympathizers might be calmed by a picture of their demonstration. Please consider to change the offending photo with this one: Köln stellt sich quer – nokögida 5. Januar 2015-3799.jpg (depicts PEGIDA adherents).
- I will try to restrict myself to reverting blatant POV, vandalism etc. and to support at ANs. JimRenge (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please see the Pegida talk page/survey re page move to "pegida". There seems to be a consensus for Pegida. JimRenge (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker
I've made a concrete proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your proposal! You wrote "If this doesn't work to at least stop the flood of comments, then the proposal (?) of a topic-ban for Buddhism-, India- and Mars-related articles is the next step." I think the following sanction should be very clear. Does he edit India-related articles? In that case he should get the corresponding template warning of sanctions in this area. JimRenge (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hadn't thought about that. But posted this notification at Talk:Karma#Proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker. Thanks for your support. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Religion in France
Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia! I'm still new to this side of the page, so any help is definitely appreciated!
Mormonism in Norway
Thank you for just about the only keep !vote that made any sense whatsoever, I don't mind people voting keep, but they should at least give a reason why. Also, you went out of your way to add references before !voting in order to support your vote. I was going to go crazy if one more person !voted keep without giving a single valid reason why it should be kept. I'm still concerned if there is enough information about the topic to warrant it's own article, but it stands a much better chance now. Cheers. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. When I saw the Afd, I just wondered if I might be able to find reliable sources.
- I agree with you, voting without giving a valid reason makes no sense. Some people do not realize that such votes will not be taken into account. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Four Notable Truths grammar
- I was quite annoyed about this incident. I perceived it as a violation of the NPOV policy and an attempt to remove the evidence of the misrepresentation of sources, using the copyvio argument. Andy clarified it:
- "Your refusal to address the point that the sources had previously been misused and actually said something else is visible in plain sight on the talk page. (...)" AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- "(...) The point is that the sources cited actually said something else - and that you refused to discuss this. (...)" AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- In the ANI, Blades was quite successful in using the copyvio allegations as a red herring. JimRenge (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! The sources are saved in the article right now, and those ones have been moved to ==Further reading== that have been added there by user JanetAlisonHoskins, or that have been added into sources but haven't been used in the article. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Dating of the Historical Buddha
Hi Jim Renge! I got your notice. I am wondering who you are! I failed to correct the article. Please, discuss with me if you are a Buddhist scholar. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rleakey (talk • contribs) 10:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- HI Jim,
- I am referring to you the two authentic page for dating the Buddha time. Please, edit the date accordingly...
- With Regards
- R Leakey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rleakey (talk • contribs) 00:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment Joshua!
- @Rleakey, please take your time to read the article on Gautama Buddha, including the many notes and references. 2109 editors have worked on it in the last 13 years  and have discussed edits at the articles talk page (see also: archives !).
- The following accessible publications summarize more than a 100 years of research on "Dating of the Historical Buddha": , . This publication is just a very small new piece in the big puzzle and the anonymous author of the UNESCO website repeats the traditional dating (623 BCE) and does not appear to be aware of the scholarly debate.
- Please try to reach a consensus at the articles talk page, before you change the text about the Buddhas birthplace or birth date. The articles talk page is the best place to discuss, because 746 editors are regularly watching the page. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your reply. You did not try to understand my short reply. I told you that I am familiar with this debate. I am familiar with these literature. In fact, the approach of philology could be helpful in dating the text but not in dating the Buddha himself. We all know that the Pali canon was written in Sri Lanka in the first century BC. No matter how accurately memorized there is always chance to be influenced by recent dialects or language. In conclusion, Norman and Cousins works cannot be profound basis for dating the Buddha. For this we need other peer works from archaeology, anthropology and other sources. Recent archaeological work is here, read it. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9424004&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0003598X00049899. I admit that the article has some setbacks but it is far reliable than linguistic approaches. Other hands, UNESCO is an established and reputed organization, and it far reliable than those individuals' articulations. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rleakey (talk • contribs) 12:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Rleakey, Coninghams publication has been discussed here. If you wish to continue this discussion, you might consider to copy/paste the relevant parts from your text on this page to the article talk page (bottom!).
- There are more editors interested in this, and the current consensus can only be modified at the article talk page. Therefore, it makes no sense to continue this discussion on my private talk page. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Rfn newbie alert!
Greetings JimRenge! Just for your information, I am just learning more about the correct use of refs, so please bear with me if I am making mistakes at Cao Đài or Vietnamese folk religion :-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Jayaguru-Shishya, sfn-style is excellent! See Buddha for a good example. If you click at the short cite, you get automatically to the full citation in "Sources"! It does not work now in Vietnamese folk religion. You have to follow this style: . Cao Đài is very bad, because the citation style is inconsistent. Enjoy ... JimRenge (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Baroni 2002, p. 230.