User talk:Moonsell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Moonsell! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Mac interface[edit]

I use a mac computer with screen resolution 896x600 (to avoid eye strain). In Firefox's preferences I have the default font set to Times 24 which gives me good viewing of most web sites. I'm having trouble with viewing Wikipedia on this setup and in particular with editing on it. I would like to upload screenshots for you but can't work out how.

Some print is uncomfortably small and even so illegible that I have to copy and paste to another application before I can decipher it. I could increase the text size in Firefox but other text on the same page is already huge and such an increase either a) crowds the small text out into a narrow column, as in editing panes, or b) results in text from one part of the same page overlaid on another part so that neither is legible, as in Wikipedia:Tips. The crowding problem (a) is so inconvenient that I am finding copying and pasting between the browser and a text editor easier but this is surely not how things need to be!

Any suggestions, commisserations, solace would be most welcome.

Moonsell (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure if the following would help you, but if you hold onto the Control Key (Ctrl) and then scroll down, the text should be bigger. If not, go to your preferences located at Special:Preferences, click on the Skin Tab, and try changing that. If that doesn't work, go to the Preferences again at Special:Preferences and then click on the Files Tab, and have a go with changing around the options there. I hope this helps! The Helpful One (Review) 17:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: unneeded reverts[edit]

Hi Moonsell and thanks for bringing this up :-) I am sorry if I reverted any of your good faith edits. Go ahead and put it back, I will keep myself away :-) On wikipedia, editors usually communicate via talk pages (as you can see all editors have a talk link near their name, click on it if you want to communicate. Instructions on how to leave a new message are usually present on the page) :-) P.S. I have now removed the warnings from your talk page :-) Cheers, AVandtalkcontribs 12:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Many edits[edit]

Hi Moonsell - great job on the Tibetan Buddhism article. However, can I ask you to try to compact your edits a bit? Over a period of two days this month (for less than an hour each day) you made 28 separate edits to the same article. Every time you click the Save page button, the Wikipedia software saves an entire new copy of the page with all its text and formatting to the servers - not just the bits you changed. So over those two days, that one article was duplicated twenty eight times, with only minor changes each time. If you want to make several changes, you can do them all in the same edit - you don't have to do them separately at all, in fact for space reasons we actively encourage taking a long time over one edit to get everything right, rather than making lots of small ones. This isn't a warning, or me getting angry or anything like that - in fact, it's only a request, you can keep making multiple edits if you really have to. It's just better organisationally if you combine everything into one. Thanks. —Vanderdeckenξφ 12:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this for you, Greg. Thanks for the comment alerting me to the saving page many times problem. The main thing that limita me for the future about it are if I put too many edits in one save they all get trashed with a single revert on the basis to an objection to one of them. Also there is human fallability, that I can't always be organised enough to get the job done right in one (or sometimes, even a few) goes. I'll try to keep your suggestion in mind, though and make an effort to use the sandbox to avoid having to do the same job too many times. Best wishes. Moonsell (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If someone objects to the content, they don't have to revert the whole lot - they can just remove one sentence. Or conversely, if someone reverts your edit, you can revert or undo all of that - except for one sentence - then discuss on the talk page. Beware of reverting too often though. The history tab and diffs are incredible things. Oh, and the best place to put messages for other users is on their User talk page - which is always at User talk:Someone, so for instance yours is User talk:Moonsell (that link doesn't work because it points to this same page) and mine is User talk:Vanderdecken. User pages (like yours, User:Moonsell) are for putting information about yourself. Why don't you go and create yours now? —Vanderdeckenξφ 18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of citations[edit]

Please see WP:CITE for some guidance on the use of references and cites. You may also read WP:MOS, in regard of styling questions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Just wanted to say thanks for your useful - and cited! - deletion of inaccurate material on Vajrayana... there's much on that page that is somewhat inaccurate so if there's anything else you could contribute it'd be very welcome Dakinijones (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked it, Dakinijones. Otherwise, the Vajrayana page looks quite mature and I don't know that much about it, but will keep your invite in mind.Moonsell (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The never-ending story about Shugden[edit]

Hi, I'm just starting another attempt to stop the NKT people from 'taking over' the Wikipedia with their continuous edit-war to promote the Shugden practice. If you agree, please leave a note at Administrators noticeboard. rudy (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhism[edit]

I came to Wikipedia seeing to read up on some information about how Tibetian monks perform their great physical feats and the training they undergo. I was disappointed by the lack of any information in that article. I noticed on the talk page you asked if there was anything that could be added to the article. There's something. Mac520 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights in Tibet[edit]

Thanks for the tip. I am surprised there is no article on Human Rights in Tibet. Do you know why that is? HRW and Amnesty have done reports on this topic. Zujine (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I can't say. Moonsell (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to start one, or at least start working towards one. Zujine (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Outline of Tibet has a red link to it already under "Law and order in Tibet". I don't know enough about it and don't have sources at hand, so can't help much to start it but could help maintain it and clean it up. Moonsell (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Law and order in Tibet is different from human rights issues in Tibet. The former may bring about the latter, but I'm suspicious about whose interests are served by the use of euphemisms like that.Zujine (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I created the article. Feel free to pitch in. Zujine (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Tibetan Languages[edit]

The Tibetan language family is as varied as the Romance family. Linguistic works on Tibetan languages refer to them as such. This article does not need to be changed. Tibetologist (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. Please see Talk:Khams_Tibetan_language for more on this. Moonsell (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This discussion now in Talk:Tibetan_languages Moonsell (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram resolved.svg
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

Need help with formatting[edit]

I'm having trouble with formatting on the Talk page for Tibetan Buddhism: Someone wrote the following near the end:

"You can flag it with a "citation needed" template [citation needed] which may take an "expert" awhile to get around to. See Esoteric_transmission#Secrecy. Called "secret", so there is likely no reference. Perhaps hooey?" [User's failed attempt to attach a signature follows.

That seems to have broken something in Wikipedia. My subsequent stuff below that is formatted in a way that doesn't work. I've tried many things to fix this, but the only way that works (in a sandbox) is to delete the other contributer's entire comment. Is there a way to avoid this?

If you can fix it, please let me know how you did it, in case it happens again.

Moonsell (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Moonsell. The other user added a <nowiki> tag, but did not add the corresponding </nowiki> tag to resume the wiki mark-up. So the rest of the page had its formatting removed. I added the closing </nowiki> and faked out the rest of the information on the signatures of the conversing editors. -- Dianna (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Help please with new articles from old sections[edit]

Pictogram resolved.svg
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

I've been working on the Tibetan Buddhism article. It is long and needs to be shortened. There are parts that are too highly specialised to be of interest to the general reader, but also too short to be of use to the more inquiring reader.

As I've already outlined on the Talk page there some time ago, I would like to spin these and maybe others off into new articles all of their own, which would then be more amenable to amplification, and link to them in this, the main article. The link could be in a "See also...". No-one has commented on this on the Talk page, but it is a very old issue that has been discussed with this article in archived Talk too. It seems, no-one knows what to do about it.

Can anyone point me in the right direction for moving certain sections only (not the whole page) to new articles, where to put the "See also..." and how to format?

Moonsell (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Splitting. I've also moved the request template into the same section where it should be so that responders can answer & acknowledge it without having to edit the page or make them separate actions. Dru of Id (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The Tibetan Buddhism article is rather short. I don't see how you consider it a long article in any way, shape or form. Merigar (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see

Moonsell (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhist History[edit]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tibetan Buddhist History, and it appears to include material copied directly from

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tibetan people may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Information icon Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on [[:Tibetan Buddhism]]. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content.VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Tibetan Buddhism by reverting several editors. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

Please see my reply on the Tibetan Buddhism talk page.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Another Edit warring warning[edit]

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

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  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. Montanabw(talk) 04:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Tibetan Buddhism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Moonsell (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

I was blocked because of an edit war on alk:Tibetan_Buddhism. I would like to request a review of that block so as to remove it from my record and ask why I have been penalised but not a fellow editor who was involved.

My actions in the edit war were the product of exasperation. Two months earlier I had undone something another editor had put in the article. I had found big faults with it re balance and relevance. These detracted from the article so much that they made it absurd. Even with much talk, she had never addressed these concerns.

From very first, this editor had harassed me with accusations of trying to own the article, messages and tags in the article's talk and on my personal talk page intended to stigmatise and inflame me. Getting blocked was the outcome of being worn down by this. Eventually she pinged another editor to join in. Although they posted warnings about the impending block on my talk page, in the light of the past messages and tags I had come to misinterpret them as vexatious.

A final factor is that I had come to despair of WP's processes to help with all this.

I have been active here with no dramas for six years. Despite that I know my understanding of WP processes is poor. I do want a fair and collaborative situation in which to contribute.

Moonsell (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm declining your request to be unblocked. In your next unblock request, I suggest you don't criticise other Wikipedians, but accept that you went over 3RR, and provide assurances that, in future, you'll avoid edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

  • For what's it worth, I only revert once a day, and normally, I only reply to talk page posts on a daily basis as well. I wrote an essay about my reasons called WP:In praise of 1RR, which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Phil. Your remarks are constructive and allow me to see new things. My problems haven't gone away but I've apologised to the two other editors involved.
Moonsell (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

    • FWIW, I don't consider this much of an apology. "I'm sorry for... getting myself blocked"? That's not an apology at all. Then you add another shot, " your communication so far has not been helpful to me. " And then keep arguing about things that aren't what anyone else is debating. That's just not getting it. This user refuses to understand that their unsourced material is not the way we edit wiki and their long diatribes at the talk page trying to argue their case is an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situation. I and the other editor have repeatedly tried to get this user to understand that sourcing is necessary and I posted links to the relevant guidelines at the article's talk page. Montanabw(talk) 18:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Montanabw, if you can't accept my apology in my part of it, that's your prerogative. In your comment above you used "..." to excise a bit. The apology read "I'm sorry for losing it and getting myself blocked." Do you want me to apologise for something else too? You're not saying what it is.
You say I added another shot, "your communication so far has not been helpful to me." I actually said, "It's always nice to having someone new contributing to the Tibetan Buddhism article but your communication so far has not been helpful to me." My simple understanding is that this is just normal etiquette but there had been no chance of it till then. To have said it without the qualification would have looked insincere or even supercilious. I did mean it. However, you entered as an editor at the height of a storm, when good faith had reached a low point so I can see how you saw it as a "shot". It honestly wasn't intended that way. I really was trying to build bridges.
You say I argue what no one else debates. This is no excuse for stonewalling. Can I urge you once more to please mull a bit over the Tibetan Buddhism talk since 12 October.
Re sourcing, please see my further discussion and do me the courtesy of addressing what I've written. Someone has hidden my discussion there under a "Collapsing long comments by one user" process so please look for it there. Also obscured there you will find another short section of talk which another editor requested. She seems to have abandoned contributing but it does relate directly to the section you had particular problems with.
                   Moonsell (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Moonsell, you aren't getting it. You are not going to get a point by point discussion on the article talk page because the points you raise are not ripe for discussion UNTIL you learn to follow WP policy- the only issue is that you can't just insert unsourced material into Wikipedia, even if it came from God talking out of a burning bush (to borrow a tale from a different religion). Even if it's done elsewhere, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument - those articles also need improvement! I have now said multiple times to go read WP:OR. WP:V and WP:RS. You can't just put in long essays that appear to be simply your own views, you HAVE TO source material to reliable third party sources. When you get that, then we can discuss if something should go into the article. Montanabw(talk) 04:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel the tone of this and other things you've written is patronising and very offensive. You still haven't discussed what I've said about sourcing on the Tibetan Buddhism talk page. Please continue the discussion in a respectful way there.
Moonsell (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, you behave as if you are unable to comprehend simple wikipedia policies on sourcing. If you are offended, look in the mirror. You are not "getting it" that wikipedia isn't about your opinions or arguments, (see WP:OR, it is about citing to reliable sources. Anything you want to add, suggest a book that backs you up. Until then, you are right up there with the Flying spaghetti monster. Montanabw(talk) 09:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Moonsell, I've read over the history of this controversy, and to me it looks like you tried to engage respectfully and with good faith and patience in the face of attacks you didn't deserve. Still, PhilKnight's practice of limiting reverts to no more than one per day is good. Long ago I noticed that I was fighting a WP battle with no one backing me up, and decided I'd better lay off a bit. Eventually, I decided that what I was fighting must not be that bad, or others would have engaged, too. The result is still unfortunate in my opinion, but intelligent readers must use their own sense of discrimination. It's an imperfect world, and sometimes we just have to accept a WP article being wrong, even indefinitely. I agree with the substance of your objections to VG's Bon text at the heart of the discussion, and it looks to me like Ogress and Prasangika37 did, too. I made some changes that I think are improvements and are better supported by the source. Let's see if they stick. Bertport (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Your counsel is as thoughtful as your contributions.
                   03:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

{{unblock | reason=Please review the block once more. Can I offer the following considerations. I've made extensive contributions on WP over six years before the edit war. They've always been constructive in the past and I hope they have been constructive since. I was able to keep excellent relations with other editors based on trust and respect. I must have learnt about the 3R rule from the beginning because I always check these things thoroughly, but I obviously got complacent and failed to update my knowledge. In my last appeal, I meant to say I would not repeat the misconduct but I was not explicit. The 1R method is good and I commit myself to following it. I certainly will not let myself get hot headed like that again. It was counterproductive in a crisis and has impaired my ability to keep contributing fruitfully. The experience of the block has had a benefit for me, however. From what I've learnt personally I intend to live longer. I would be happy to keep all these references to the block on my talk page as a reminder to me and an acknowledgement of my mistake. I only ask that I be removed from the list of people who are a threat of making trouble. 09:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)}}

This block expired long ago; it is not necessary to request an unblock. Kuru (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this, Kuru. I realise I'm no longer blocked. I'm asking for the record of having been blocked and of edit warring be changed, please. This unblock request is the only way I know of doing that. Please refer above to PhilKnight's treatment of my first request for this already.

                   Moonsell (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to; you are free to edit as you were before. Presumably, with more attention to our policies on edit warring. I'm not aware of any way to alter block logs, not would I support this request were it possible. You are free to remove/archive these discussions from your talk page as you see fit. Kuru (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)