Revision as of 09:13, 28 January 2015 editJoshua Jonathan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers107,296 edits →top: Made userbox visible← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:19, 28 January 2015 edit undoTcat64 (talk | contribs)76 edits →Warning & Discretionary Sanctions Notice: new sectionTag: contentious topics alertNext edit → | ||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
:Hi ]. I love this. I will read the sources; thanks. And let me repeat: you wrote before something like "thoughts are also actions"; that was really helpfull to me. I said that before, and I like to repeat it here. NB: please do have a look at ]. Best regards, ] -] 08:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC) | :Hi ]. I love this. I will read the sources; thanks. And let me repeat: you wrote before something like "thoughts are also actions"; that was really helpfull to me. I said that before, and I like to repeat it here. NB: please do have a look at ]. Best regards, ] -] 08:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
== Warning & Discretionary Sanctions Notice == | |||
Joshua Jonathan, here's a warning: | |||
* POV-pushing at ] | |||
Take also notice of this generic warning: | |||
{{Ivm|2='''Please carefully read this information:''' | |||
The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding ], ], and ], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ]. | |||
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. | |||
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. | |||
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> | |||
] (]) 12:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:19, 28 January 2015
| |||||||
|
Joshua is Nr 1!
Joshua is Nr 1! | |
Joshua is Nr 1! Hafspajen (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC) |
Ah, thanks Haf's! Even better than the coach. You're not my shrink, you're my elevator! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
.00
HOuhu. Hafspajen (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Robert Walker
I couldn't either agree or disagree with your topic-ban proposal "right out of the box". I would like to hear from him. I don't see any evidence to implicate him in any controversies about Hinduism as such. The "out of India" theory of Indo-European languages, although supported by many Hindu nationalists, is not distinctively Hindu, and is held by a few fringe scholars elsewhere. If he has indeed been canvassing a new editor to take his "side" in content issues about Buddhism, that is a new issue.
I have requested a clarification from the ArbCom concerning the issues about "out of India" in general, as to whether a past ArbCom decision imposing ArbCom discretionary sanctions applies. For background, the Arbitration Committee sometimes imposes a special rule on a topic area that has frequent battleground editing. Some of these topic areas become battlegrounds in Misplaced Pages because they are real battlegrounds, such as India and Pakistan or Palestine and Israel. These sanctions permit administrators to impose special limitations, up to topic-bans or blocks, for persistent disruptive editing. What I have asked is whether the India-Pakistan area extends to the ancient history of India. My own thinking is that it probably should not, that it probably should only apply to India and Pakistan during the British and the independence periods, or maybe back to Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. However, if it does apply to ancient Indian history, then it could provide a vehicle for dealing with troublesome edits about the history of India and Indo-European languages. We shall see. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm quite sure it applies. The IAm took place 3,500 years ago, but the discussion and denial of it takes place now. It's a highly controversial topic. The canvassing was already a limt, but to re-open a dicussion at the Fringe Board, on such a topic, where such a clear statement was made, and to use this post to attck me again - that was the bloody limit. I'm trhough with it, to be attacked at page after page, with the repeated notificication "I;m working on a DRN". No, he's not! He's only making it worse and worse! Let him post the stupid DRN, so we can get over thsi - so he can get over it. He's an obsessed person, who doesn't know when to to stop. Anyway, thanks for responding. Sometimes one needs someone else to get back into balance. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
On Skillful action on Anatta page
Hi Joshua, I appreciate your comments. Just as information (if you don't mind me pointing out some technical matters): skillful action in itself doesn't lead to liberation. It only leads to long-term happiness. (See pg 186, chapter 7 Karma and Rebirth in Early Buddhism by J P McDermott, published in Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, 1980, University of California Press) The happiness that comes from skillful action is only temporary (see pg 187 of same source) (You can also see chapter titled "Pushing the Limits" in Purity of Heart, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, 2006). ScientificQuest (talk)
- Hi ScientificQuest. I love this. I will read the sources; thanks. And let me repeat: you wrote before something like "thoughts are also actions"; that was really helpfull to me. I said that before, and I like to repeat it here. NB: please do have a look at User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Warning & Discretionary Sanctions Notice
Joshua Jonathan, here's a warning:
- POV-pushing at Mandukya Upanishad
Take also notice of this generic warning:
Please carefully read this information:The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.