User talk:JaMongKut

JaMongKut, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JaMongKut! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, JaMongKut, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You So MuchJaMongKut (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Vijjadhara

Hello, JaMongKut,

Thank you for creating Vijjadhara.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article needs links to the four vidyadharas.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru: ThankYou Very Much. I'll try my Best, but will surely require some time. As the article was formed by splitting, the information was unsourced from earlier, I just splitted it. But I'll try my best to cite more sources. Sorry, but I don't understand, what you mean by "This article needs links to the four vidyadharas." Could you please guide me?JaMongKut (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rishi. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. In Wikipedia we maintain the WP:STATUSQUO. That is the format before people start making the changes without consensus. I've seen you POV pushing 'Buddhism' and edit warring in a lot of articles including Rakshasa, Rishis, Asura, List of rock-cut temples in India. That's probably why you were blocked before. You should discuss and gain WP:CONSENSUS first in each article per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:CONSENSUS. If you continue to do it, you'll get reported to WP:ANI again. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{re|Fylindfotberserk}} Wowww!!! I learnt something new now, Such comments like, "Hinduism should be first" is not POV pushing at all!!! Instead Clearing them by saying, "there's no such genneralization or rule" is instead a POV pushing. Please let me know, if I said something wrong. ThankYouSoMuch for making me aware of such things.

And Please, I wanna clear one point, I was not blocked for that, first of all your concept of blocking itself is wrong. Blocks are not for punishment, they are for prevention, and it was of edit warring,just to prevent it, which of course can't be done by one person, will he revert his own edits. But there need to prevent it, so any one should be blocked, and that was me, which I also don't have any problem. Also one thing made to be cleared, that edit war happened because, though he reverted first, even though I started discussion and in the discussion also he was not discussing at all, neither was teliing proper reason for revert.JaMongKut (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are quite like punishment if you do not know it. Disruptive, edit warring and/or POV editing result in incremental blocks culminating in indef bans. Anyway, I don't give a damn about religion whether it is Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, etc. The article had "Hinduism and Buddhism" in that order, which seemed to follow the history of the term religion wise. I reverted to longstanding version, instead you preferred to POV push Buddhism like you didn't in many articles before, without any valid reason to do so. Your Buddhism centric POV is very much apparent in all of the articles you edit, which is why you get into edit wars with multiple users. You donlt seem to understand the concept of WP:STATUSQUO as well as WP:CONSENSUS adn WP:BRD per which the article needs to get reverted to the longstanding version, with changes only to be done after mutual consensus is reached. You on the other hand, write your comment, then get back to reverting. This is not how WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS is done. Be wary of your ways. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its all upto you at last, how you see the concept of block. But as per policies it is for prevention only. Also, the reason was not my edits, it was edit-war you know. And you saud everything, but don't give answer to my question in the first para, Is it right na what that Such comments like, "Hinduism should be first" is not POV pushing at all!!! Instead Clearing them by saying, "there's no such genneralization or rule" is instead a POV pushing. Please let me know, if I said something wrong. Hinduism should be first otherwise it is POV pushing, Am I getting it right? Sorry but could you please the same thing of COnsensus to that other user too, if you look, youb will see, he is the one not discussing for the consensus at all and just reverting.JaMongKut (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If "there's no such generalization or rule" as you've put then why are you POV-pushing your religion "Buddhism" ahead of other religions in all articles you seem to cross paths with? It reeks very much of Buddhist-POV pushing from your part since it is what you seem to be doing all along. And since your edits are that much conspicuous, people are bound get at odds with you. When multiple people take against your edits, problem lies with your edits and POV not others. I don't remember saying anything like "Hinduism should be first", instead I wrote "added Jainism per article body. Please maintain chronology per article. Obviously it originated in Hinduism first" here, which is vastly different from what you are trying to imply. I was talking about maintaining the chronology, which I cleared up in my above comments about that and WP:STATUSQUO. I didn't even change the order in the 'Kinnara' article here after you POV pushed Buddhism ahead of Hinduism here with your dubious edit summaries of "fixes and better presentation", despite the longstanding version being something else. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry, I'm not here for any religion. I edit as per my interest, not for my religion. What is "Your religion" means in your statement? You may be for rreligion. By the way, suggesting you Wikipedia is not the platform to Prove your religious ideology, nor editors should come here to do so. What is that My religion, Your religion, etc..No one is making it ahead. One place is to be given, I always prefer first. Then why are you making to have Hinduism first. There's, as per I know, no such policy that say so to maintain chronology. I've also talked of other edits ehich you've mentioned. Also, just talk about the edits please. Talking about editors instead of eits is not accepted by WP policies. In your earlier and this message also, you seems to talk more about the editor than the edits. In Kinnara also it was not POV pushing at all, Is adding the name Buddhist itself a POV pushoing Now??? as one previous editor has done the POV pushing insgtead by removing it.JaMongKut (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously when you try to arbitrarily arrange religions in every article you edit so that Buddhism features ahead of other religions, it shows POV, even if that's your 'interest' only. If you had been neutral, you wouldn't be reverting after editors restored the longstanding order of religions in all those articles, but you did and edit warred. Your comment above → "One place is to be given, I always prefer first." seems to prove that you like your preferred religion or whatever-might-be-the-topic in the first position, isn't it? In the Kinnara article before you started editing it, the order was Hinduism followed by Buddhism as can be seen in this version, exact sentence "In Hindu mythology, a kinnara is a paradigmatic lover, a celestial musician, part human, part horse and part bird. In Buddhist mythology, two of the most beloved mythological characters are the benevolent half-human, half-bird creatures known as the...". You changed it to "In Buddhist Mythology and Hindu mythology, a kinnara is a paradigmatic lover, a celestial musician, part human and part bird. .." here, even removing the specific characteristics of the Hindu version, until I came back to re-add it here, but unlike your edits I didn't change your preferred order, keeping the sentence as "In the Buddhist mythology, a kinnara is a paradigmatic lover, a celestial musician, part human and part bird. In Hindu mythology, they are described as being musically talented part human, part horse and part bird, centaur like creatures". So your comment above → "Then why are you making to have Hinduism first", gets debunked. Similarly in the Rakshasa article. Adding "Buddhist" or re-adding it after someone maliciously removes it is not POV pushing, but purposefully rearranging sentences and paragraphs in the lead, so that Buddhism features ahead of other religions repeatedly is POV, especially when your edits are flagged by other users, for violating WP:STATUSQUO. Also note that, just commenting your points in the talk page and engaging in reverting without the consent of other party is against WP:BRD. You should reach a mutual WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD policy before you make changes to the article after being reverted the first time. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, Buddhism of course is older than Hinduism. But Vedism, which contributed to the Hindu synthesis, is older than Buddhism. And obviously, Buddhism and Hinduism draw on a common Indian heritage. Putting Buddhism everywhere ahead of Hinduism is plain silly; just accept standard conventions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: No who is putting it everywhere, I'm not chnaging any order which were from previouus. I;m just putting buddhism in the listing where there was no mention of it, but it was needed and while doing this I put it first. I'm not changing it everywhere. Also, if in such cases if there's no mention of other religions and someone then mentions it and put it in front(provided it is also one of the Primary), I don't have any problem at all. I've also no problem for various lists which from earlier mentions Hinduism first and then Buddhism. I'm not doing it everywhere, you can see my contribs. But if one is changing saying things likeHinduism shoud be first( not Fylindfotberserk but some others) , then that's not a good thing at all. Fylindfotberserk's point of as per section doesn't seem proper, There is also not such policy neither generalization. Also Hinduism should be first is not standard conventions. Also there are certain articles, like Mantra where one editor has in his edit changed the order to Hinduism first. But I don't disagree now, becausee it was too past edit.JaMongKut (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, JaMongKut, and welcome back to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: ThankYouSoMuch. I loved the cookies. JaMongKut (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Merging the article Buddhist Cosmology and Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada School is a big task. It's nearly impossible to do it in one shot. Can I merge it step by step, which I think will require a week ? JaMongKut (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. But I'd advise you to be very critical about what you merge; most of "Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school" is already in the target-article, while BcotTs contains several lenghty quotes which don't seem to worth merging into the target-article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: Thank You Very Much. Thanks for the your advice too. Yeah that's what the main problem is, I don't have to copy too much, as already target article contains the same. But I've to check each and every line for any important. Also, some other copying and pasting require much time, but it can now be done stepwise, which has reduced a great load. Yeah, I will also try to not include quotes, etc. which do not seem worthy to be merged. ThankYou once again. JaMongKut (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, I'll also try to have a single sentence having the same meaning of the quote, instead, which will not also require so much space and we will not also loss the info.JaMongKut (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can place the {{in use}} at top of the page(s) when working on it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: Okay, ThankYouSoMuch, I was not knowing it. JaMongKut (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maheśvara (Buddhism), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Sorry I was unawre it was disambiguation link. I will correct it now,JaMongKut (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Vesak

Buddham sharanam gacchami !!!

@Whiteguru: ThankYouVeryMuch. JaMongKut (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Vesak!

Happy Vesak,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy and Blessed Vesak to you and yours! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Send Vesak Day wishes by adding {{subst:Happy Vesak}} to user talk pages.

@ToBeFree: ThankYouSoMuch. JaMongKut (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Buddhist symbolism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Thank you for the information. Sorry, I was not knowing it. I'll be careful from next time. ThankYouVeryMuch. JaMongKut (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phra Phrom as a Buddhist vs Hindu representation

Hi. I've started a discussion at Talk:Phra Phrom#Hindu Brahma vs Buddhist Mahabrahma on what exactly the representation is of. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]