User talk:Mitsube

Dear Mitsube,

I have been quite inactive on wikipedia for the past month or so, I have currently not so much of a drive to get back into it. Especially searching for quotes and referenced statement is quite time-consuming, and you need quite a high motivation to do it, so for the moment I don't see myself going back into a heavy editing mode. If you have some issue about a certain article for me, it's best to make it really specific so I can find the issue and get an opinion on it quickly.

I am sorry for not providing an email address in my profile, it has some advantages but some disadvantages too. Some people don't really appreciate all of my edits, so for now i prefer to keep it as it is, to stay more anonymous without email address... You never know how it goes with these large databases.

best wishes,

Greetings, Sacca 12:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Indian Religons

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. I suggest you follow your own advice. - GradiationScheme

Sanskrit

Why dont you tag the unreferenced passages with a template rather than undoing the whole of the work if you are clear you know nothing about what I was adding there? ­ Kris (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sanskrit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Vedic Sanskrit, you will be blocked from editing. ­ Kris (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

How is Panini related to Vedic Sanskrit? Please stop your POV pushing just because my edits dont suit your POV. That it was unique because it was transmitted entirely by oral tradition is well known and dealt with extensively and referenced later on in the article. Your perisitent disruption to articles you dont have any idea about will not bring good any to you. ­ Kris (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove this sentence from the article: "Around this time (fifth century BC), Panini fixes the grammar of Classical Sanskrit." ? Mitsube (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

MajorActor

I only just realised he's the major banned guy Maleabroad (talk · contribs). I guess you can detect his pattern of editing by now. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana

Hi Mitsube, I note you quit my external link re: nirvana. The data is not part of Wikipedia proper, hence does not require detailed research quotes, and which merely distract. If you like, I can add an endless list of quotes starting with Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Tsong Khapa et al and ending with Schzerbatsky, La Vallee Poussin, Oldenberg, Conze, Lopez et al. Leave alone, please.

Regards, Nagig, alias the Mahathero Bodhangkur

Your post does not make sense. Please do not add any more links to those websites. Mitsube (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana

Hi Mitsube. Of course it does not make sense if you don't read the fine detail of what's there or observe from a different angle. Might I suggest you go pindapata for a month; or you might sit near the Bodhi Tree in Bodh-Gaya for a couple of decades like I did. Then, perhaps, and if you're lucky, you might catch on. Regards, Nagig

Your English is unintelligible. Mitsube (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Early Buddhist or Theravada Userbox

Hi Mitsube -

Despite poking around some after receiving your request, I don't know of any early Buddhism or Theravada userbox. Perhaps a new userbox could be created? Looking at various existing templates, if you had an inclination to create one anew, I guess the associated text could something like one of the following:

• This user is interested in early Buddhism. [cf. User:UBX/Christianity and User:UBX/Bahá'í]
• This user follows Theravadin Buddhist teachings. [cf. Template:User_Dzogchen]
• This user is a Theravadin Buddhist. [cf. Template:User_Buddhist]
• This user is greatly interested in early Buddhism and has a fair knowledge of it. [cf. Template:User_Buddhist-interest]

And perhaps appropriate images might include one of the following:

• 
• 
• 
• 

Thus, such a box might simply look like:

This user is interested in early Buddhism.

Perhaps? (FWIW, Sacca often comes up with inspiring images and thoughtful ideas for these kind of projects.) Hope this might help. Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

God

Mitsube, i went off to research your point of contention.

i found that the fourteen unanswerable questions do not mention a creator, although their spirit certainly overlaps with all metaphysical questions.

i found that Wallace: finds some evidence for Buddhist traditions caring about whether there is a creator or not; includes an instance of "noble silence" on a matter of omnipresence; and uses the third person to declare that Buddhists worship Buddha in a "quasi-monotheistic" sense.

i didn't have time to follow all the footnotes, but i have no reason to doubt the historical research. the last claim is a careless misunderstanding, grossly overstating the experience of any person who has considered Mahayana Buddhism as a philosophy leading to a way of living; and it is not sourced, so is apparently Wallace's own conclusion.

i think the appropriate thing for me to do is back off the 14 points, and restore your quote of Wallace. then, i'll continue by differentiating between the historical understanding of various traditions, interpretations of what the Buddha said, and key themes for Buddhists now. this probably means more subsections. lastly, i'll expand the Wallace point to include actual quotes.

While it is commonly said of the Mahayana tradition that it deified the Buddha as an omnipresent, divine consciousness, the Pali canon is notably silent on the status of the Buddha after his parinirvana. In one often-quoted dialouge, when asked whether a buddha exists, does not exist, both exists and doesn't exist, or neither exists nor doesn't exist after death, the Buddha responded with "noble silence", choosing instead to discuss the Four Noble Truths, which he felt were more pertinent to the spiritual needs of the questioner. A common interpretation of his silence is that all four of the logical options presented to him are expression of conceptual elaborations concerning existence and nonexistence; and none applies to the Buddha after his passing. All such conceptual elaborations are inadequate and misleading in this regard.

[...] In seeking to distance itself from non-Buddhist Indian philosophical systems, the Therevada tradition has gone out of its way to emphasize the non-existance of God and immortal souls.

[...] Like Theravada Buddhism, the Mahayana tradition, which emerged around the beginning of the Common Era, also refutes the existence of a god who created and rules the world. For instance, Santideva presented a detailed argument in refutation of Isvara as the divine creator of the world. Like earlier generations of Buddhist scholars, he took great pains to point out important distinctions among the views of his own Buddhist school, other Buddhist schools, and non-Buddhist Indian traditions. The refutation of a creator was seen as a key point in differentiating Buddhist from non-Buddhist views.

[...] The experiential realization of the ultimate nonduality of one's own tatahatagarbha and the dharmakaya is said to transcend all conceptual elaborations, including the categories of existence and nonexistance, for all practical purposes, the Mahayana tradition regards the buddha-mind as existent throughout all time. In this regard, one may speak of the "living Buddha", in much the same way that Christians speak of the "Living Christ". For Mahayana Buddhists worship the Buddha as a divine presence here and now, much as a supreme diety to whom they make supplicatory prayers and from whom they believe they receive blessings and guidance. While Mahayana Buddism refutes certain notions of the self and a divine creator, it clearly does not do away with the self or a supreme diety altogether, so it may best be described as quasi-monotheistic.

Wallace, B. Alan (2006). Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge. Columbia University Press. pp. 96–99. ISBN 978-0231138345. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

- Rgrant (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris

Please do not participate in extended conversation with User:Srkris as you are an involved editor and your opinion will be considered partisan. Un-involved editors and administrators will take care of it. Thanks. Docku: What up? 13:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Prayer

Truth and peace to us! Lets edit from Buddhachita awareness like the Buddhas...

Peace..

--Satyashodak (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Controlling our biases

Hello Mitsube,

Great pleasure to make your acquaintance. I did a brief survey of your past edits and it would not take a great amoint of analysis and intuition to sense that you have a strong bias in favor of Buddhism, or rather the version of Buddhism that you may have learnt. I hope I am wrong about this. There is nothing wrong with having biases. We all have our own.

But let us try to keep them check while we edit the articles. While editing lets us make sure that we do not suppress the opposite viewpoints and do not use subjective criteria to regard one source more authoritative and reputable than other.

The Hinduism and Buddhism article the way it is presently edited shows a clear lack of neutrality, which has gone unnoticed and uncontested largely. Let us work to correct it in small increments. I hope you will be able to remain constructive in this regard.

--Satyashodak (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You are in fact wrong. Mitsube (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism & Hinduism section

Regarding this section- yes, I think it should stay cut. The section is 'notable views'- there's nothing that asserts why this particular 19th Century Indologist is notable. Further, it's essentially a critique of one particular school of Hinduism which isn't really introduced earlier in the article- it leads the reader wondering why we're suddenly talking about this particular school when earlier discussions relate to Hinduism more generally. It just sits there as a bare piece of criticism, without much connection to the wider article. Finally, I think the opinions of any 19th Century scholar should be taken with a good deal of salt and presented with proper context for their views- a lot of good work was done by 19th century Western scholars, but the work of many of them was also marked with strong biases and has often been overturned by later research. We have no way of knowing from the present passage if that is the case with this passage. If you know more about this particular guy and why this view is significant I'm open to keeping it if we can provide some context for who he is and why his view on this particular issue matters, but otherwise I'd prefer to see it go. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mindstream

I contend with the charge of synthesis and original research. I am contextualizing the traditions and the worldview for those unfamiliar. This is preparing for the introduction of the "one and many" problem that the whole tradition grapples with and resolves in different ways. This is the principal debate that Sanatana Dharma and Buddha Dharma had. Showing how the metaphor of water developed in the Tradition is not synthesis. Water, a metaphor for the continuum, is key in the traditions. I want to work within the guidelines of Wikipedia because I value the rigour and would appreciate your assistance as we cover similar territory.
Ah
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not proposing it, as there is no such discrete entity as I. The metaphor of water is patently apparent and thankfully to the work of McEvilley, citable.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

New Joker on the block

...on the pages of Comparative religion‎. The usual stuff of Buddhism and Jainism as offshoot of Hinduism with the discredited references. Seems to be next1's sock. Do watch this page whenever you have time.--Anish (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

....I know....he is also vandalising Karma and Moksa. I think he the same guy who is thereatening and vandalising my user page.--Anish (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen an Indian as jealous as you or 'Anishshah19'. Why are you trying to hide the truth from the world? Everyone knows that the Buddha was Aryan. Just give up your Ambedkarite propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.221.214 (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not Indian, I am concerned with right-wing Hindu propaganda that distorts the history of Buddhism. Mitsube (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Randall Collins Quotes

Just a heads up about the stuff from Randall Collins that you were adding to Buddhism and Hinduism tonight- if you're going to employ his exact wording, the text should really be in quotations to indicate that it is a direct quote. I think the guideline is to prefer paraphrasing of the original source to extensive quoting, but if you're going to retain the author's wording it's necessary to include the quotation marks. --Clay Collier (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add anything from him tonight. What are you referring to? Mitsube (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, was looking at an older diff and got the date confused. This was what I was talking about- the section dealing with meditation and Brahmanical practices. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are any copyvio's in there, do you? Mitsube (talk) 07:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly a copyvio issue so much as just a convention and a plagiarism avoidance thing; it makes it clear when it's the referenced author's words and when it's someone else. I think it's usually expected that it's only the author's exact words if it's in quotations. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Upanishads, etymology

Here is the whole paragraph from Olivelle, Patrick. The Early Upanisads. New York, Oxford Univeristy Press, 1998. ISBN 0-19-512435-9. p. 24. Check also the footnotes, esp. second.

"In the early vedic literature the term most commonly used for 'connection' is bandhu, a term derived from a verb meaning 'to bind', 'to connect' (footnote 1). Bandhu commonly means a kin, but when one thing is said to be a bandhu of another, the meaning is that the former is connected to or is a counterpart of the latter. The earliest usage of the important term upanisad indicates that it, too, carried a similar meaning: upanisad means 'connection' or 'equivalence.' (footnote 2) In addition, the term implies hierarchy; the Upanisadic connections are hierarchically arranged, and the quest is to discover the reality that stands at the summit of this hierarchically interconnected universe. It is, however, assumed that such connections are always hidden. We see the term used with this meaning in the Upanisads themselves, for example, at CU 1.1.10 and 1.13.4. Because of the hidden nature of these connections, the term upanisad also came to mean a secret, especially secret knowledge or doctrine. It is probably as an extension of this meaning that the term came finally to be used with reference to entire texts containing such secret doctrines - that is, our Upanisads.

Footnote 1: For studies of this concept, see Gonda 1965 and Smith 1989.

Footnote 2: On this meaning of upanisad, see Renou 1946; Thieme 1968a, 83-87; Falk 1986b. Gren-Eklund (1984, 117) states that the term 'denotes the fact of two things being placed in a relation to each other.' In the light of these studies, the older view (Deussen 1966 [1906], 13) that the term derives from 'sitting near' a teacher and refers to a group of disciples at the feet of a teacher imbibing esoteric knowledge is clearly untenable. The term comes to mean also a secret doctrine or rite: see Bodewitz 1986b, 438, n. 4." --Mpsmps (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The term is actually used in a variety of ways. See [1]. Mitsube (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, the interpretations vary and are not always independent of the religious and other views of the authors. Maybe this should be emphasized in the article. Can you give exact citations regarding the research about the meaning of the term? I just happen to trust more recent research published in peer-reviewed journals than a sample of books from Google. Mpsmps (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote. Your quote shows three uses of the words. Perhaps you could paraphrase the author's description of these three uses and note how and why he disagrees with the view that Upanishad meant the relationship of teacher and student (and that definition is not meant to be exclusive by scholars that use it, according to our books from google). Mitsube (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edit warring report

Please see my comments at your report. Cheers! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It would appear from YellowMonkey's findings that you were more justified in your reverting than met the eye. Anyway, take from my earlier caution what you will (it's still probably a good idea to follow it, but in this case, you'd have been justified, anyway). Keep on keeping on! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

More socks of User:Maleabroad?

Hello Mitsube. YellowMonkey, a checkuser, has blocked the two editors you recently reported to 3RR. He considers them to be socks of Maleabroad. Since you have been studying the histories of several relevant articles, you might keep an eye out for other socks of the same guy (similar edit summaries, similar attitude etc.) Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Report him to me please. I can fix him up but I don't follow that stuff clossely. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Reincarnation Article

Reincarnation is already too long. A seprate page should be started for the proved cases of Indian children who remember their previous births Jon Ascton (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Soul

If you restore it, I can go ahead and add references. Im not sure what you mean by "helps the article..." certainly that is your unsourced opinion. But note that even if all the text I wrote were stripped out, as you did, the article would still need a treatment of the concept. You do agree, dont you, that the concept of "soul" has some aspect of life (and therefore death) in it? PS: You might be one to give the Dharmic concepts some treatement in that section too. -Stevertigo 18:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It comes across as unencyclopedic. But I have restored it. Mitsube (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Domō. Please join me in dealing with the Dharmic stuff, which I don't claim to know much about. -Stevertigo 18:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey! Sorry I was so unpleasant! I overreacted. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Blanking out" aka Editing

Eh ? But you do that all the time, don't you. How are things different in my case ?? You really do seem to have a problem about other users. Do you think you have personal ownership of Buddhism articles ? You behaved like that when I last did a stint on Wikipedia and you haven't changed over the intervening months. There is no Wikipedia rule against that, is there ? I stated my reasons which are perfectly legitimate and valid. You know the Wiki motto "Be Bold !"-- अनाम गुमनाम 23:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes removing material is in accord with wikipedia policies, and sometimes it is not. I invite you to read WP:V and WP:RS. Mitsube (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Hodge

Hello Mitsube,

Just for your information: I believe user:Anam Gumnam is the same user as a user who was around previously, a certain user:Stephen Hodge. They have very similar (poisonous) attitudes, promote the same biases, are interested in the same subjects, talk about the language prakrit a lot, and Anam is 'claiming' on the talk page of the Nirana Sutra page to be the writer of several of the books that are used in various wikipedia articles. Just so you know who you are dealing with. He sounded so familiar, thinks he knows everything best. All the best, Greetings, Sacca 17:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To users Sacca & Mitsube

I am most definitely not any of the people the pair of you who you seem to think I am and let me remind that speculating about or revealing supposed information about a user's real life identity is strictly forbidden under Wiki rules. You can be permanently kicked off for this-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

superman

I reverted your changes on Superman (disambiguation). I don't think that's the right page - or at least not the right content. Disambiguation pages are for navigating to the article that describes the term. None of the links mention the term superman. If they did, it would make more sense. see WP:MOSDAB. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, such as those you made to Superman (disambiguation), it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pranayama

Following B.K.S. Iyengar (1966, 1968, 1976: pp.359-377), in parsing prāṇāyāma it is seminal to note the syllable 'ā' in italicized and bold font which in the paramparā of traditional received pronunciation is enunciated at a higher pitch. This pitch marker within the 'support' of the aksara "ah", holds and encodes meaning for the parsing and decoding of the term. For the Dzogchenpa as well as for the Mantrayana mantrika, the end is in the beginning, the 'fruit' (Sanskrit: phala) is contained in the 'root' (Sanskrit: adi), the omega is in the alpha of Ah, the first phoneme of the 'Garland of phonemes' (Sanskrit: Varnamala). Worthy of note, is that this syllable is 'ā' not 'a'; therefore, Prāṇāyāma is to be parsed as 'neither prāṇa-yāma nor prāṇa-ayāma' and this is an application of the fourth function of the Catuskoti. Where 'yāma' may be understood as 'cessation' and 'ayāma' as 'continuity'. Therefore, following Indian logic which had its origination in the sacred grammar of Sanskrit (as different to Greek or classical logic which had its roots in mathematics), prāṇāyāma is the sadhana of neither the cessation nor continuity of prāṇa: that is, it is the discipline of neither the expiration/exhalation nor inspiration/inhalation of prāṇa. Why the negation "neither", the negandum? There is a conceptual and cultural challenge to the non-Indian and this negandum construction in other languages, particularly in the English construction, and it is extremely obtuse and opaque for those not versed in the Indian tradition of logic generated from grammar. The logic embedded in this Sanskritic grammatical example conveys that both poles complement and interpenetrate each other; importantly, it also points to a synergy as does the fullness of the Catuskoti, to a sublime addition that is more than the sum of its complementary, indivisible parts: an addition, the one True Dharma that is not conceivable to the conceptual mind, but is the knowing of pramana of 'direct perception' (Sanskrit: pratyakṣa; refer Patanjali's Yoga Sutras: verse 1.7).

A classical test of direct perception is that when it is revealed it stands on its own merit.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Stream of consciousness (psychology)

Please check Talk:Stream_of_consciousness_(psychology)#Unsourced_addition. Thanks. NazarK (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reply :) Updated, enjoy :)) NazarK (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, friend, thanks for all your attention, but so far you're becoming more like a 'cut it away' guy, ravaging through all I try and bring in here... That's not very nice... I don't claim all my edits are 100% perfect, and surely they can be improved with additional citations and other stuff, as well as better streamlined with the primary area of the articles I edit. But your actions seem to be pretty close to cleverly concealed vandalism. You destroy the good and useful... Please consider your actions! NazarK (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The word "samyama" is a technical concept in Patanjali's meditation theory and deserves to be treated as such. Mitsube (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Recognition of your devotion to the three gunas and your sattva qualities

		The Buddha Barnstar
		For your imperturbable concentration and divine focus on Buddhist terminology. If only the rest of us had your third eye, perhaps we could see and understand what is being talked about. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for having a good sense of humor and a spirit of comraderie even when there is a dispute. The Big B would be proud. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Triune

I reverted your edit to the triune as Vandalism, sorry for that... Other your edits I observed fall not too far from that definition. The triple nature of Samyama has direct transposition to the concept of holy Trinity as well as other philosophical triple divisions. I'm going to work on finding proper reliable citations and references for this when time allows, but the short mention in disambiguation article seems to be quite self-sufficient (I haven't seen rich numerous citations and references in Disambiguation articles so far, sorry). Please relax and stop destroying other people's work. Its imperfections will be gradually removed. No need to burn it down to complete zero and discard the way you do. Be constructive, not destructive. If you remove something of value, replace it with better referenced, more precise and suitable material explaining the same point. Otherwise, especially if you're not familiar with the subject, don’t jump in interfering, please. Regards. NazarK (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is your original research. Mitsube (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check Talk:Triune. Unless you stop destroying the articles I'll have to apply to admins for blocking your account. Thanks. NazarK (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Mitsube is right in removing your additions if you do not cite a source. Future refrences do not count. If he thinks your text isnt true or biased, and you don't give any justification for your views in terms of references, he's perfectly justified to remove the information you added. Greetings, Sacca 00:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad edit reverting

Caste system is a socio-economic system. But in Dharmic (Hindu) teachings there is Varna Vyavastha, which literally means the Class System. According to the ancient Dharmic Hindu scriptures, there are four "varnas." The Bhagavad Gita says varnas are decided based on Guna (qualities) and Karma (actions).

-How is any of this my personal opinion that needs fact checking? I could if I had to though, which you should do rather then delete the info. Please brush up on your linguistics and history. Caste system IS a socio economic system. Karma DOES mean actions. etc.

There are no known teachings in actual Dharmic scripture that support this label, but there are teachings against this (Ram's curse against sages who used the label).

-Don't shift the burdon of proof. If the above statement is wrong, YOU show where it says Varna system is based upon casting people by birth and including any outcaste Lableing IN the Scripture. If not, YOU are a part of the distortions.Sfvace (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:V, the burden is on the editor who wishes to add material. You can tag or remove material that is unsourced. Mitsube (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't come on here to further the article, or an edit war, and would not have seen this since it's on YOUR talk page lol, but I DID do that. I removed the UNSOURCED. The burdon of proof is on the editor, as I ALREADY SAID. Now you shift it back on me when I remove it? And regarding the 1st part, again, How is any of this my personal opinion that needs fact checking? I could if I had to though, which you should do rather then delete the info. So don't revert the edit where back to where it says birth based caste system with outcastes is apart of Hindu Varna system, this is NOT SOURCED. It's like if someone says slavery of Africans is a Biblical teaching, but it's not sourced. I should REMOVE it and you should NOT revert my edit when I do remove it.

And again, about the other portion, Please just get a dictionairy or something; Caste system IS a socio economic system. Karma DOES mean actions. etc. etc. don't delete edits based on ignorance. Sfvace (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Very bad editing style...

This is addressed mostly to those visiting Mitsube's talk page and being not very happy about his devastating and aggressive style of editing, which is actually 'blanking out' of useful material. Well, the guy here (Mitsube) is smart enough to always find some particular Wikipedia prescriptions to cover his destructive actions. But if you analyze the general pattern of his actions, you can see that he's actually selectively viciously undoing people's efforts (not always 100% perfect efforts, surely) to enrich and improve the content of Wikipedia. Mitsube is supposedly a Buddhist, but he seems to have a very specifically biased (or rather quite screwed up) understanding of the Buddhist principles. His pattern of editing also shows predominant aggression and desire to burn down to zero against the Hinduism-related topics. I suggest everyone already afflicted by Mistube's 'feats' come together and find a way to keep his disruptive tendencies in check. This is for the general good of Wikipedia and to save the articles he would be damaging in future if left untouched. NazarK (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

as i have been invited to this conversation, i'd like to suggest perhaps some face-to-face time is an appropriate way to clear the air. this is the most-friendly way to get to know someone and establish trust. Wikipedia has no known protocol for this level of resolution, but my email is resolvable from my user talk page, and i offer it as a starting point. - Rgrant (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

looking into dispute resolution further, i find that any discussion of editor intent will take us away from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. it's more important to keep the discussion about the content - Wikipedia:NPA. if there is encyclopedic information to be added, it will only survive through the ages with great references. - Rgrant (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

True. Mitsube (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"if there is encyclopedic information to be added, it will only survive through the ages with great references" -- the problem is Mitsube's 'blanking out' edits do not seem to add any 'great references'. They simply destroy what other users care and take effort and time to add. They destroy with no slightest respect even for the 'presumed' value of the additions, not to speak about frequent cases where Mitsube obviously starts off from the wrong end and shows lack of competence in the topics he destroys. Only after someone reacts to his blatant intellectualized vandalism would he actually go deeper into the subject discussion and promptly find some 'prescribed' reasons for his vicious deeds. And, you know, there are so many various 'rules' for a perfect Wikepedia article and so few users who really know all these rules or even have the capacity/knowledge to keep up with them... It's really not too difficult to find one if you want to point a specific piece of average quality article and say: "This is not as the rule advices..." I think the bulk of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted if Mitsube's criteria would be applied to them. Please help me save some of them... I do hope their content will be improved through the ages by more constructive editors. NazarK (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your entire point is that you should not be required to follow WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:V. When it is clearly stated like this, hopefully you can see that you should follow them after all. Mitsube (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

i'd put it this way: there are established guidelines to keep even disagreements constructive, and converging to NPOV. one must assume good faith, but guidelines actually state to remove unsourced edits, and then discuss the matter. tenacity is definitely required to introduce any change; optimally this is tenacity in sourcing, but ultimately it is tenacity in forming consensus. view any reversion as an opportunity to improve the submission. - Rgrant (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Through friction the natural resplendence of a gem is augmented: a cabochon through polishing and a faceted stone through decisive, bold cuts. Both styles are of value and form valuable product: though the faceted, crafted through boldness, are brilliant. Some stones are unfacetable, whilst bold cuts destroy others irrevocably. Wikipedia is brilliant. Mitsube, has particular issue with my often wayward edits (due to my apparent disregard for convention and 'guidelines'). I appreciate Mitsube's vigilance, though I often find it abrasive and challenging. Mitsube, though technically skilled and intelligent, demonstrates a marked immaturity for the manifold richness of the traditions of the Buddhadharma and its entwined relationship with its Dharmic siblings and Vedic and Brahmanic parentage. The smallest and quietest, sometimes awkward voices should be heard and respected as well as the loudest and most eloquent. Mitsube would do well to concentrate less on removing the work of others and provide reputable sourced information to improve article quality: it is more engaging to construct than it is to destroy.

NB: all opinions expressed are my own and tendered in good faith (though inappropriate)

Aum Sri Cintamani Ratnagotravibhaga Hrih Ah

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have an anachronistic view of "Brahmanism." I do appreciate your positive comments. Mitsube (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"I think you have an anachronistic view..." -- I think B9's view is a mature view. This is the view I'd sign. And this is close to the way I think. Thank you for your eloquent and wise comment, B9. My style of reacting is, nevertheless, more the 'mirror' style, and that will get Mitsube's aggression back onto him. I don't feel he should be fully wiped out, but is it my opinion he should feel a deserved resounding slap on his face. Yes, he's intelligent enough, and has a fair amount of diligence and spiritual aspiration invested, but his approach is not healthy, it's severely biased and requires a shock therapy for him to change and recover. His boldness is OVER THE TOP. His rigidness of interpretation is one of a stone, not of a living heart. Yes, much of what he's currently undoing will be restored in a more perfect form. But this will not happen at once. He's pushing the situation out of the reasonable boundaries of constructive, balanced way of evolution...

Regarding the rich and reliable referencing etc., it's not really deep in my nature and I do not always have the time and desire to spend hours searching for proper perfect referencing. I have my own knowledge to share and my own experience to give out. I do my best to provide the highest possible compatibility of this process with the guidelines of the host structure (Wikipedia in this case). The things I share and try to improve here are neither brand new nor original. They have multiple references in various sources. Others who have the talent and skill will have plenty of opportunity for referencing them properly and more brilliantly. I might also do that myself in time.

And, finally, the discussion I raised here is not primarily about my own edits, because they are small in number and actually do require further polishing. I'm speaking about Mitsube being the destroyer of many other persons' work. Not only deteriorating the Wikipedia, but first of all discouraging and aggressively humiliating those who are not experienced enough to match his skill in a battle he starts. These people he drives away and hits hard actually came here wishing to do something good, wishing to share and create... and what do they get??? A bureaucratically vicious wipeout of their junior steps in Wikipedia??? That really can not continue this way...! NazarK (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a high standard. If you want to add info to existing articles here you should match that standard. If not, your contributions are actually damaging, and not respecting the edits of the people through whose efforts the existing text was written. That's why some people have to undo bad edits, which takes a lot of time. So: many thanks to Mitsube! Greetings, Sacca 11:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually now that I review all the Diffs from the recent few hundred Mitsube's edits I see that his removals (and additions) really do improve the standard of Wikipedia. Great job! I do believe it takes lots of time and attention to go through other people's edits and cut away those rough pieces. That is what makes the Wiki articles shine in their full glory! Maybe I was just too emotional in my previous comments, not taking into account the whole bulk of work Mitsube does for the project... Sorry for that... Yet, some of my remarks may still be worthwhile to take into consideration. I do not seem to be the only person here who was unhappy on account of his deeds. Maybe a more delicate approach would benefit everyone... NazarK (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I came here because this discussion was mentioned at WP:ANI#Problem with Mitsube. The complaint is lacking diffs. It is premature to ask admins to become involved. Find a specific article where you think Mitsube's removal was not justified, and try to gather a consensus on the article's Talk page, using an RFC if no consensus can easily be found. The options for content-based resolution are far from exhausted. EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing the thread here so far ;) , my point and request to our most respected and hard working Mitsube can be recapitulated in adhering to the following three fundamentals of Wikipedia:

• Don't be a dick
• Ignore all rules and
• Mind NPOV -- the latter one especially when cleaning/editing Hinduism/Buddhism related articles - both have equal rights -- it's not that Hinduism ones have to be cleaned, and Buddhism ones edited.

These three form the Wiki Triune ;) (which, BTW, may be added to the triune article Mitsube was so ardently cleaning up ;)) Cheers, NazarK (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Mitsube (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism and the body

Can you review this article and see if it is appropriate for wikipedia ? It has supposedly been written as part of a school project, and several other articles by the same group of editors (Hinduism and science, Islam and civil rights, Taoism and death) have been problematic. Abecedare (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I will see what I can do! Mitsube (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove my link

Can you please explain your action regarding removing Anil K Rajvanshi's work regarding happiness. Please read his book and other articles to familarise yourself regarding his writings on happiness - the theme of the article. I think without reading and removing the link is an act of vandalism.

59.95.18.226 (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog. Mitsube (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)