User:B9 hummingbird hovering/Archive1 07.09.2006 to 17.02.2008

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 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 help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Vairotsana
Thanks very much for starting the article on Vairotsana -- However -- I worry that the text may not be licensed in a way that allows us to use it verbatim on Wikipedia (if indeed it was copied from the linked source -- I confess I didn't look at it *that* closely. ) In any event, I would be happy to work with you to expand the article, as Tibetan Buddhism (in particular Dzogchen) is an area I want to contribute more to. Feel free to leave me a note on my talk page, and welcome. Zero sharp 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * thanks for understanding. May many blessings attend you on your retreat. Zero sharp 21:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Vairotsana}}}
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from. As a copyright violation, appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Calton | Talk 05:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Singing Bowls
Hi, sorry about the reverts, I must have been gettign sloppy. I've been trying to practice patrolling recent changes as quickly as possible. Might I suggest that you log in with your account in future, as it might prevent confusion of this sort? Boris Allen 13:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Probity

 * Nothing leaps out at me, but remember if someone reverts 3x in 24 hours, you can report them -- see [WP:3RR]. The article on Phurpa probably needs a lot more references -- I'll see what I can dig up there.  Bottom line: don't take any of it personally :) Zero sharp 04:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ganachakra
I am sorry, I fail to see that Ganachakra is anything like transubstantiation. Is there supposed to be a real objective change in the underlying reality? Perhaps transignification is analogous, but, as far as I can see, not transubstantiation. Lima 05:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Tantra vs. sex magic and other topics
While these are related, they are not the same. Sex magic is a Western practice which have the same goals as Tantra and may not use the same techniques. For example, some sex magic requires emission; Vajrayana practices prohibit it. In fact, it might be better to say they practiced Vajrayana, as the Tantra article is primarily about Hindu tantra. In any case, sex magic is a Western term coined significantly after the time of Padmasambhava. The use of it represents an editorial opinion. Can you cite a source that says they practiced sex magic? A reliable academic one? If not, WP:V says it can't be said. If there is someone who thinks they are the same, you could report on that and cite it, but it would have to be clear whose opinion it was describing.

On the other articles, I've done some sprucing up. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. does B9 stand for benign?

your articles
You'd want to start here: WikiProject Buddhism. You'll want to talk to User:Nat Krause and User:RandomCritic will be able to help you.--D-Boy 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Eagle 101's over-speedy deletion of article
Regarding the following book citation i created: * Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions International.

I entered the chapter headings...i looked at another book article on Wiki, refer following, * and used this as a template. Note that they have the chapter headings in there. If this is not a violation please reinstate the chapter headings into the article and paste a response to this on my chat page. Namaste in agape B9 hummingbird hovering 09:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion project
First, I should note that the banner was only added to the Singing Bowl article because the Tibetan Buddhism and Buddhism banners had not yet had assessment parameters in them. Those banners now do have assessment parameters, and I am in the process of removing the Religion banners from inappropriate articles. However, I do note that it the Singing Bowl is significant in the Bön religion as well, and I am less certain if the adherents of or editors dealing with that faith would want to be grouped into the Tibetan Buddhism project. It is also a matter I cannot personally respond to, being a more-or-less orthodox Catholic whose major other areas of knowledge are the older Indo-European and Semitic religions. The intentions of the WikiProject Religioon are to provide "Project support" (including at least now assessment and peer review on request, occasionally copyediting and other activities as we have members and time, hopefully other things as well later) to all those articles which do not fall within the scope of any existing projects, including those articles which deal in subjects that cross religious lines, like Religion, God, Theology, and so on. Also, we hope, eventually, to be able to set up work groups similar to WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Military history to work with articles relating to specific religions which do not yet have that degree of focused attention. Personally, I would be more than happy to welcome any new member or participant, particularly anyone who could bring any existing knowledge or experience regarding any of those religions which lack project support. I'm not sure if that answers your question, though. If it doesn't, please feel free to leave a follow-up message on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion page, or contact me directly. Thank you for your interest. Badbilltucker 14:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sig
Go to your user preferences and write your signature as code. Then check raw signature. My signature  Noble eagle   [TALK]  [C] has the following code:

" Noble eagle  [TALK]  [C]"

There's a few errors because of the nowiki things but just go into edit mode if you want to look at the actual code, leave out the blockquotes of course. If you want me to explain any of those functions I will do so but it pretty much speaks for itself. is used for superscripst. Noble eagle  [TALK]  [C] 03:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Big Bang
You know, I think I do have a copy somewhere, but it might be the original Ellipse boxed set of cassettes. I'd have to look around. It's hardly Micky Hart's Big Bang, though; he's just one of the artists appearing on it. I think I have off-the-board copies of Micky's live performance at Nelson's Ledges's Rhythmfest (2002) under the name Bembe Orishas, where I got a chance to meet him, Airto, Sikiru and Badal Roy though. I've been lucky enough to have been able to play with some of the Planet Drum folks at times, though never with Micky himself. It's been a dream for many years to have Micky Hart appear at Starwood, but Olatunji and Airto are as close as they've gotten so far. Zakir Hussein would be great, too. Rosencomet 17:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Satchitananda
Hi, in responding to this comment which you left at Talk:Devanāgarī, please be advised that an article Satchitananda already exists. You are welcome to improve it. Variations in spelling ought to redirect to the same article. Variations in topic, for example a person or place with the Proper name Saccidananda, should be in a separate article. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 17:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, to make a redirect page follow these steps.

Hope that helps/works for you. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 18:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) create a link to the page which you wish to be a redirect, such as sat-cit-ananad.  The link will appear red, because it doesn't exist yet.  Such a link is called a red-link.
 * 2) click on the link, and you should get an edit window.  If you don't get an edit window, your account may be too new to create pages.  Wait a few days.
 * 3) in the edit window type:
 * #REDIRECT Satchitananada
 * 1) click on the save page button.

Already exists
Actually, an article already exists at Satchitananda. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That Namkhai Norbu business
Mind terma. :-) A Ramachandran 14:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for all your work on Trul khor. Appreciated. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  23:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hiya. To change your sig. Go to Special:Preferences and check the raw signature box. Then paste your new sig text into the signature field. Try something like:

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs)


 * Edit this page to copy the html code for the above into the clipboard and paste it into the sig field if you like. Then sign your name as usual using four tildas and it should all work. Also see WP:SIGHELP. You can edit any page on Wikipedia to preview another users signature or get ideas, or even mimic their sig. Take care. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  23:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Simone Weil
Hey B9,

Thanks for working to clean up the Simone Weil article, especially with the language concerning references to God. I want to warn you, however, to be cautious with your linking. Many of the blue links now go to disambig pages, and are only peripherally related to Weil's project or life, e.g. poor, connect, sugar, travel, food, stage, drive etc.

If you don't mind, I would like to go through and weed out some of them - in special cases, interwiki linking a term to wiktionary - to bring it more in line with other biographical articles of philosophers. Let me know, perhaps we can collaborate? I've been real busy as of late, but I'm hoping to get some constructive editing done somewhere on Wiki before February rolls around. Thanks, and keep up the good work. - Sam 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Usage of Wikilinks.
Just so you know, I see that you've added quite a few wikilinks to some pages. For the Multiverse disambiguation page, this is not generally appropriate- disambiguation pages want to make it very clear the senses of the word that can be linked to and then get you to the "real" article. Extra wikilinks are considered distracting there. It's over at Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).

As for other pages, I've noticed that you've added them at a similar rate. I think that this is a bit overkill- we don't want to have a gigantic sea of blue being the article, but rather to highlight only relevant wikilinks. Plus, once you've linked a word, you typically don't need to link it again immediately afterward. As an example from your edit to the Akhasic Records article, look at


 * "A Chinese gentleman named Sujujin was reported to need only the first name of anyone to access the Akasha and describe their life history. Another Chinese seer ..."

Does Chinese really need to be highlighted twice, or even once? Is it that relevant? Same with "gentleman" and "access," as I highly doubt anyone would be looking those up. Sujujin and possibly "seer" are the only ones that need linking here, in my opinion at least. I'd recommend checking out Manual of Style (links) for some more on that. SnowFire 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop over-wikilinking articles. Before continuing, please read this section of the Manual of Style. Thanks. A Ramachandran 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking redux
Please clean up the overlinking you did to Bön or I will simply revert it to the last non-overlinked version. Several users have pointed out the appropriate section in the Manual of Style. You can't expect other editors to clean up your overlinking. I hate to see your other good work reverted, but that is what is likely to happen if you don't moderate your linking. A Ramachandran 15:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding God's eye
Wow. You did populate that article. How'd you know so much about God's eyes? Once the article gets a picture or two it will be great. Jason Quinn 16:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Cicada
Nice to see that you're trying to add something about historical perceptions of cicadas. However, you're going about it the wrong way. What you do is a minimal paraphrase of external sources. That is still a copyright violation. Even if do still more rewriting, beware of plagiarism: taking someone else's ideas and presenting them in new phrasing is just as bad. You'll need to summarize much more (offline!) and give the sources you used as references. The current stuff of Plato and the other Greeks is still way too close to the original text. Also, if you want to treat this topic in so much detail, you should move it to its own article and only leave a summary and a link to the new article at Cicada. See Summary style. Lupo 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, B9, I'm another admin on Wikipedia, and I've also noticed your several rewrites. It is important to only contribute original material to Wikipedia. Changing a few words or sentences, while preserving the structure and outline of a copyrighted text, is (unfortunately) still a copyright violation. You'll need to substantially rewrite information in your own words in order for it to be acceptable here. I know that you're only trying to contribute, and I appreciate your efforts -- I certainly don't want to discourage you! But we're pretty strict about copyright infringements around here. Basically, as a rule of thumb, if the original author would look at your contribution and say "Hey! That's my text, but with a few words changed!", then it's not something you should submit. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Three Series of Dzogchen
I would appreciate a reaction to my remark in talk:Semde. Also, can you provide a source for associating Semde with clarity, Longde with emptiness? Thank you. And beware of what you present in a public space. Menmo 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Tapihritsa
Reply at my talk page. Lupo 09:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Tonpa Sherab in the Dzogchen article
I tend to favor 'quasi-historical' in lieu of 'mythical' which (as you observed) does carry a value judgement. It acknowledges that the individual may not be attested to as thoroughly as a historian might like, while not placing them in the realm of 'mythology' altogether. Just a thought -- thank you for your edits! Zero sharp 19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. ' •Tbon  e  55•  ''(Talk) (Contribs) (UBX) (autographbook) 23:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

sic
I have reverted your changes again. For sic to be used, the term has to be archaic or spelled incorrectly, neither which is true of mankind or chairman. That you believe the terms are inappropriate has nothing to do with it, and is your POV. -- Jeff3000 15:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll revert again, and note that you will pass WP:3RR more quickly than I, so I will report you to admins. Jeff3000 16:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, one more revert and you pass WP:3RR. -- Jeff3000 16:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will note again that for sic to be used the term has to be archaic or spelled incorrectly, neither which is true of mankind or chairman. They are in common use and to the general populace do not portray any negative light, and until they fall out of use, the use of sic is misplaced.  -- Jeff3000 16:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been some evolution of language but to disrupt quotes with a [sic] because of word use is far beyond anything in my experience. And that evolution of language hasn't reached the point that such terms are unusual. At the very least you've got the attention of two people who disagree with you B9 hummingbird hovering, even though we may agree with the overall aim and changes in norms to be advanced with the equality of women and men. The terms you keep amending just aren't that unusual even in Baha'i circles let alone the norm in wikipedia or in the world. These articles should not be leaps leading the way in change - they are to express the best understanding of the way things are and using language in novel ways will only lead to confusion for most people which would manifestly not be the best understanding. A more substantial way to contribute might be to extend the articles that deal with the equality of women and men. --Smkolins 18:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Poi (juggling)
I know that your edits are well-intentioned, but they're also very idiosyncratic. I believe that as an introduction to the subject, they're more inclined to raise questions for readers than to answer them. adamrice 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC) In response to your comments on my talk page:
 * Idiosyncratic: While I thought that word was clear enough, I will attempt to clarify further. Your recent edits use words and concepts that I have never heard used in reference to poi, Maori culture, etc, and seem to reflect what poi means to you rather than what it might mean to other people.
 * "Where is it set in stone that Wikipedia is just to be an introduction to a subject?" This is Wikipedia. Nothing is set in stone. There are, however, recommended practices, such as "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject," "Use clear, precise and accurate terms." And lots more. I recommend you look at the linked help text.
 * "It is my considered opinion that this article requires some scholarly-sexing-up" It is my considered opinion that even if this were so, your edits do not provide it.
 * "The mind processes and forges new neural connectivity when it is confused which is why Zen Masters use koans amongst other methods. Are you familiar with NLP, hypnotherapy, trance~forms and meditation" I feel confident in saying that whatever a good Wikipedia article should be, it should not be a koan or be designed to deliberately confuse its reader in order to evoke some altered mental state. If that is your goal, I say again, your edits are idiosyncratic. NLP? Don't start with me on NLP.
 * "Juggling is a study in the resolution of bodymind confusion into an 'Artful Grace'." Well gosh, you'd better get started fixing the Juggling article, because it doesn't say anything like that. adamrice 16:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Where's the confusion? You start off defining one thing (poi) by introducing a new, obscure, and (to my mind) tendentious concept ("impartial art"). That is not clear writing. Crystal clarity shines like a torched fire poi hidden away in the inky depths of your imagination. Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it makes sense to anyone else. As I said, idiosyncratic. But you know, I don't have the time or desire to get into a revert-war with you, so I'll just take the poi article off my watchlist and you can have your way with it. Go to town. adamrice 17:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thoughtform
Hi, I have reverted this article as you have done a huge amount of original research and made numerous substantial edits calling them all "minor"! Springnuts 19:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I note that all, or most, of your edits are marked as minor. Please see the page Help:Minor edit: note in particular that marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette.    Springnuts 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tulpa
I applaud your efforts, but ripping an entire page’s material and pasting it into another is something that should be discussed in advance. (Ghostexorcist 09:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Christopher Hansard
Please stop adding information about Christopher Hansard to various articles as you did to Olkhon. Continuing to add negative information about this gentleman may result in a temporary block from editing. Shell babelfish 09:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits at Green Man
Please go look at the help page about minor edits. Your additions of information to the green man article were not minor, because they constitute an addition of new information, all of which was, by the way, unsourced.--Vidkun 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked at your contributions, and you mark most of your edits as minor. Please stop. It's not vandalism, per se, but has, in past content disputes, been seen as a dishonest way of pushing unsourced POV material into article so it won't be noticed.--Vidkun 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't care WHAT your background is. I don't care how long you have been working in what field.  QUIT marking edits as minor that do not meet the minor standards.--Vidkun 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your continued minor edits have been noted, as have your personal attacks. I was polite and tactful in my initial comment to you. Your response was accusatory.--Vidkun 13:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you read avoid self references? Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You put information into an article, source it in that article. Looks like you just don't understand the policies and guidelines around here, do you?--Vidkun 13:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoooooooooooaaa Vidkin cool it! Don't bite so. To B9 hummingbird hovering please do me a favor and click on the link above marked " my preferences" go to the edit tab and uncheck the box " Mark all edits minor by default" problem solved. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits
This is not a minor edit. These  are not even minor edits. This is a minor edit. If you do virtually anything other than correct spelling or punctuation, assume it is not a minor edit - that will prevent mis-use of the "minor edit" flag by accident or through misunderstanding. Please let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was using the minor edits incorrectly. I was of the understanding that a major edit was restructuring information or rewriting prior information in an article, not for the inclusion of new material.  I have noted your advice which is essentially "to err on the side of caution" and when actioning other than minor punctuation and spelling edits that an edit is not minor.  Thank you for your clarity and tact.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's it in a nutshell. Hope it helped!! If you run into any kind of dispute or problem in the future, let me know and I'll do my best to assist. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, KC, and thank you, B9. I hope you understand, I'm not saying your edits are worthless, vary much the opposite.  But how they showed up made tracking exact changes difficult.  I appreciate you adding Beer as a reference, but I would also ask that, if possible, cite a specific page, so that anyone looking for the information you are supporting with that citation doesn't have to read the entire book.--Vidkun 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're both very welcome - it may help to understand why we at Wikipedia limit "minor" to teeny-tiny-minor edits. On a Watchlist or Recent Changes, an editor can choose to not see the "minor" edits - this keeps them from checking what changed only to find out "jane fonda" has been corrected to "Jane Fonda", for example - but if anything has been added, removed, rephrased, or in any other way actually changed, they want to know about it. Hence, reserve minor edits for those edits no one will ever, ever care about. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tapihritsa/Temp
I have added a "" template to the article Tapihritsa/Temp, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Postcard Cathy 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Songline vs. leylines
While I respect your views which you have expressed in the article on songlines, and I'm sure you put them in in good faith, I don't think they are a NPOV. Can we discuss it on the songlines discussion page? Cheers, Ray RayNorris 10:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi hummingbird

Yes I'm happy to discuss this. I'm happy with the current arrangement in the songlines article, but if you'd like to discuss it then that's fine. I guess you and I have different viewpoints - I'm sceptical of lines of energy, ley-lines, and any reference to magnetism that I can't detect with a compass or magnetometer! So I guess we'll need to agree to disagree on these things. But equally, I respect the fact that others have a different view from mine, and the need for wikipedia to have a NPOV. So fire away!

Cheers

RayNorris 00:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Japa mala
Thank you for your interest in the Japa mala article. Currently the article is poorly sourced. When making changes to content, it would be helpful if you would cite WP:RS if possible so that the article can be improved in quality. If you feel that a change is needed but don't have a source available to quote, you can raise the issue on the talk page for the article and see if any other editors may be able to assist in locating sources. By working together we can reduce the amount of unsourced material in the article. Buddhipriya 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I nominated John Horgan for deletion.
Regards,Rich 06:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Invitation
Would you be interested in joining a team effort to bring the Tantra article to featured article status.

If so, please see Talk:Tantra

TheRingess (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ganachakra
Well yab-yum is essentially method and wisdom, method being bodhichitta and wisdom being the realisation of emptiness so how does that relate to coitus? It could be argued that the representation is sexual and therefore it can be considered 'symbolic coitus' but wouldn't it be better to say that it is the union of method and wisdom? I was simply changing the information that was related to Vajrayana as I cannnot speak for other traditions. Jmlee369 08:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced additions of content
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Buddhipriya 22:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bandha
A "" template has been added to the article Bandha, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Buddhipriya 07:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide sources
Regarding this edit:, according to Verifiability, "Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." If you do not agree that sources are needed, would you please take the matter up on the talk page for the article on Tantra so other editors can discuss the matter? Buddhipriya 06:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello
Hi there. I noticed that you placed some quotes on the Tantra article. Since you seem familiar with both authors, do you remember where you read them? Basically the Tantra article is a "start" class article right now, since it has so many unsourced statements. To get it beyond this level, we will need to resolve the issues with sources. References also really enhance an article, in that they give a casual reader, such as myself, access to more resources. If you really can't dig up the sources and wish to put the material back in, can you place a fact tag next to it, to alert other editors that those statements need a source? In that way, someone else might be able to extend the article. Thanks.TheRingess (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I noticed that you mentioned print sources. Web sources are perfectly acceptable also. The criteria for sources is "reliability". Of course, there are going to be differing opinions about reliability. In my view, regarding sources for tantra, we want to make sure that we are not using sources that "just made things up". I recognize the inherent problems in reliability in regards to a tradition that is as fluid and varied as Tantra. The article really needs to represent all different viewpoints without giving undue weight to any possible fringe varieties of tantra. Thanks for bringing up the quotes. To me, the material was not clear as to whether or not they were direct quotes or a synthesis of things said by the sources. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR
You have been making similar edits to several articles such as this one, which has been reverted twice by another editor:. You appear to be engaged in WP:OR and making speculative interpreations of sources rather than citing sources. Please also read Verifiability which says that "Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, or quotations, must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." Rather than engaging in an edit war on articles such as that one, please take your issues to the talk pages for the articles involved to see if you can build agreement for your views. Buddhipriya 09:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange Edits
Dear B9 - please could you take some time to consider your edits in regards to Pancha Tattva. I agree with creating a disambiguation page, but you then replaced that with information already in existance on Panchamakara. It might be an idea to discuss bold changes on talk pages first, before moving articles around in such drastic ways? Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

August 2007
Adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. You have been told several times that you sometimes engage in WP:OR. You often add content to articles without citing any sources, which is inconsistent with WP:V. I am concerned that when I have asked for sourcing on articles, you sometime simply revert my requests for sourcing rather than complying with WP:V. I am sure that you are doing these things because you think they are the right thing to do. However I am having difficulty understanding your postition. Would you be willing to enter into mediation to attempt to resolve this ongoing conflict over source quality and general referencing needs? According to the graduated response mechanisms for conflict resolution, another step preliminary to mediation would be to involve third parties:. I feel that involving third parties in this matter would be helpful to try to promote dialog on the issues. Are there any thoughts you have on that? Buddhipriya 08:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:LAYOUT
Please stop adding the Bucknell book to multiple articles without citing it in any inline note. According to WP:LAYOUT, the References list is a list of works actually cited in footnotes (inline citations). If you actually cite it in an inline reference, with a page number (not just a mention of the book, which makes verification difficult), then it can be added to References. Buddhipriya 05:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replied to two of your comments on my talk page. It can be confusing when comments are on multiple pages, but you may want to watchlist my talk page if you prefer to dialog both there and here.  Some editors prefer that method, others prefer to keep everything in one thread on one talk page.  I generally do the latter, but will accomodate you if you prefer the other method. Buddhipriya 05:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an example of the type of revert war behavior that I wish you would not engage in: . I cited a specific policy in WP:LAYOUT at the time I remove this uncited work.  Instead of disussing it, or responding in any way to the policy issue, you simply reverted it.  Do you think that will be more effective in the long run than trying to reach agreement on approach? Buddhipriya 05:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The spaciousness of accommodation is elementary. I politely requested grace which you have chosen to disregard. Please appreciate the requirement of the resource of space within which to work.  BP's edits and reversions in relation to my input are draconian and dogmatic and I feel bullied. This is not name calling: it is calling a spade a spade:  a rose by any other name?  B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 05:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read the warning more carefully, It requests that you not discuss the contributor, only content. Discussing another editor in a negative light is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. Please get used to our definition while you work here. If doesn't matter if it is true or not. It's an attack. IPSOS (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I thank you for refining my understanding. To repay the courtesy, there is no "negative light" in what I have stated it is factual according to the definitions of the terms. And I will refine my statement further to comply with policy. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. IPSOS (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no, those are personal attacks. Ad hominems. Name-calling, If I see it again, I'll use a stronger warning. This is a non-negotiable policy of Wikipedia. IPSOS (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this editor has agreed to my suggestion to involve third parties as part of a conflict resolution process, I have posted a request for input on the Hinduism Project talk page: . I chose to place my notice there because the articles that I am concerned with generally all fall under that project (except for the occasional Buddhist or other exception).  Buddhipriya 05:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, they don't "fall" within "Hinduism", they reside within the ken of Dharma. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

List of circle topics
Dude, it would help create a more cooperative collaborative working environment if you didn't try to unilaterally "hijack" the page to make it something other than it's been, without even discussing anything on the relevant discussion page -- not to mention that adding links to random vaguely circle-shaped objects doesn't necessarily do anything to improve the page... AnonMoos 06:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dude read the edit prior to my first edit. Your statement is erroneous. I simply reworded the list introduction to reflect what was and is. The textual introduction was false. If you feel so inclined, it would be appropriate to extract all mathematical items and create a new list rather than deleted wisdom and work won through diligence.  B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 06:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're mistaken. What was and is does not include things like "inner circle"; it includes only things that are physcially circular in shape.  That includes symbolic things that are circular in shape.  The fact that they may be in some sense metaphorical does not make them "metaphorical circles", since their circular shape is a physical reality and not just a metaphor.  Sigmund Freud's "inner circle" is a metaphorical circle, i.e. it is not actually circular in its physical shape, so the word "circle" is being used as a metaphor. Michael Hardy 23:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Please do not include religious proselytization terminology when leaving comments on my user talk page. I really don't care what your religion may be, and it would be nice if you could conceive the idea that I don't feel like changing mine (or even particularly discussing it at all in the current context).
 * 2) If you're so spiritually personally enlightened, then why can't you discuss things on the relevant discussion page before making radical changes to the scope and focus of an article??? AnonMoos 17:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The items you added are NOT metaphorical circles; they belong under either "artifacts" or "glyphs and symbols" depending on which sort they are. Something that has a circular shape and is included for that reason belongs under "artifacts" or "glyphs and symbols". When one speaks of Sigmund Freud's "inner circle" then that is a metaphorical circle; it does not have a physically circular shape. Michael Hardy 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
You are edit warring without discussion just as Buddhipriya described on my talk page. The quote you've added to the lead section of several articles has almost nothing to do with the topic of the article. Please explain why you believe otherwise and why it is so important to put in the lead section. Please do so on the article talk page, where people have been requesting that you discuss these issues. IPSOS (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Do you mean for bibliographies of an author's works? That's chronological. The pertinent MoS section is Manual of Style (lists of works) for other style guidelines... IPSOS (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit comments
In reference to the edit comment in this edit:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. IPSOS (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette discussion
Since you have agreed that involving third parties may be helpful, I have asked for a discussion of recent edits to Mantra and your insertion of Bucknell et. al. on multiple articles at: Wikiquette_alerts. The Wikiquette alert page is an informal place where opinion can be had about disputes without opening a formal mediation or other conflict resolution process. The page notes that "This page is not part of the formal dispute resolution process, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go." Buddhipriya 02:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, B9 hummingbird hovering. User:Buddhipriya has asked me to intervene in some of the conflicts you've been having.  I've reviewed many of your edits, and you seem to be a dedicated, good-faith editor.  That said, you run into quite a bit of conflict, and I'm hoping that I can provide you with some pointers that will reduce that.
 * When you add new material, especially new material to which you anticipate other editors objecting, it is very important that you provide a source. For example, the material you added |here looks quite a bit like original research.  While you've provided sources to say that some philosophers believe that consciousness is not located in the brain and that Hunt believes that it is a field phenomenon, the rest of your edit reads quite a bit like a personal essay.  That's not to say that it is an essay, but there's no way for somebody - especially a layman like me - to tell, unless you cite reliable third party sources for everything you say.  Another example of concern is in that edit and |this one, where you suggest that bodymind and Namarupa are the same thing, with the former being an English rendering of the latter.  That may or may not be true; I don't know.  But I do know that not all editors agree that it is true, and that it therefore needs a source.
 * You seem to be willing to discuss your edits, which is very important. However, some editors have expressed a concern that your comments in article talk pages can be difficult to understand.  It's important to remember that not everybody may have the same background or belief system as you; whenever possible, you should avoid terminology that not everybody may understand, such as "mutually informing technologies and processes", "image schema", and "concept map".  Concluding an argument by asking whether a circle is a line is also not very helpful for most people.  In general, remember that clarity is prized over beauty when discussing Wikipedia content (and in the articles themselves - this is, after all, an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are not noted for their prosaic beauty).
 * It is also very helpful to cite Wikipedia policy when engaged in content disputes. Anybody can argue that something should or shouldn't be in an article based on personal preference, but policy provides the first principles that help prevent irreconcilable differences.
 * This is a personal observation that is not necessarily related to the complaints of other users or to the conflicts you've been having, but I think you sometimes remove common words in favour of less common approximate equivalents; I am a big believer in George Orwell's Rules for Writers.
 * I hope you will consider what I've written and that it will help you avoid conflict. If you have questions about anything I've said or if you wish to discuss it, please respond on my talk page. Sarcasticidealist 22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

All-Creating King Tantra
Hallo dear Hummingbird. Thanks for your message on my personal page. Yes, I'll try to put references to those quotes from the "All-Creating King Tantra" when I have time. The quotes are very inspiring, aren't they? All best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 16:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hallo again! Just a quick note to say I've added the page references you requested. All the best. Tony. TonyMPNS 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Animal markings
If you want to create a new article on animal markings, all you need to do is go to Contributing to Wikipedia and look up "Create new articles." My expertise is on horses, terms for other animals may not always be the same. Good luck! Montanabw (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yoga poll
Hi! There's some discussion on whether using "asana", "yogasana" or "yoga asana" as the article title. If you are acquainted with the subject, you are invited to drop your opinion at Talk:Yogasana. Davin7 10:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dylan Thomas's study
Hi - you changed the name of a .jpg file - as opposed to text that appeared on the Dylan page - so it no longer summoned my photo onto the page. (The image name required the final 's' in Thomas's.) Incidentally, in normal writing I write to avoid "s's" - but as a copy editor I would never call it redundant - anyway - argument unnecessary as this is 'only' a file name that I've restored. Tony in Devon 15:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Browning
Hi - you asked me to look at your recent Browning edits. I'm something of a poet, but not a Browning expert. Other comments are as a copy editor/writer - and UK English user - and just general usage. Going back through recent edits and summarising my reactions... 1. I think HAD recommended Elizabeth TO live in Italy BECAUSE... were correct, but your word FAVOUR is more accurate in strict OED terms (though HELP is not uncommon usage). I'd suggest you change back those first words. (I've not touched anything on the Browning page - I'm just responding as you asked.) 2. later or twilight - well, I'd favour FINAL instead - unless Browning's abilities were in decline over his final years (not something I know) in which case your TWILIGHT would be fully justified. 3. arrangements or settings - I'm not musical - I asked my wife who is, but she said she wasn't sure, but if they have the same meaning, why bother. Back to you for your judgement. 4. the pursuit of - sorry, but I really think that's unnecessary - the word READING on its own was correct and fine. 5. vegetarianism - yes, I agree with your change. OK, I just tackled those at moment. Hope that helps. Regards Tony in Devon 13:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hullo again - I've looked at most of rest, but run out of steam! Here we go, starting where I left off, but numbering from One again. 1. Punctuation - it needed a comma not colon - done. 2. BOTH - that's OK, though sentence isn't very elegant anyway. 3&4. deleting comma after unit - you are really just amending an acceptable style here - and arguably that phrase should be separated by comma - I thought it best restored and have done. I think I put an 'and' in mid-sentence too - the second half was neither because of nor despite the first fact. 5. dropped out v. left - yours more elegant. 6. musical talent etc - yours OK 7. Ouch! Now I do think this has become a mess and suggest you should simplify and part return to original. It would become an essay from me here to untangle - my I suggest you simplify. If you'd like a comment again later, fine. 8. 'and' - no, wrong, I undid. 9. I'm not being rude, please believe me, but talking about the securing of a publisher being unrealised does sound a very convoluted, pendantic way of expressing this. I felt I had to leap to the 'undo' but intervening edits made it less simple... I did something to this. But I don't think it really needed this change (if any) in the first place. I think this is an example of change that Wiki principles discourage... but I'm a comparative Wiki newcomer. 10. You deleted material about his mother's family - on a quick look? Was it inaccurate? It should surely be restored to help build the picture of the poet. Well - you've had me looking at a page I'd not have browsed. I can see you search for elegant, exact phrasing - but I suggest keep it clear and simple, and not add unintended meaning - and that should be the target when you look back at a few of these. Regards again Tony in Devon 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fæcce
Hi Hummingbird! You asked me to have a look at Fæcce, and I am sorry I have taken so long, but real life has kept me busy and given me little time for the wiki. I am afraid that I have never heard of fetch in this sense before. IMHO, the article should be merged with Fylgja since both articles are quite short and treat the same concept. There are many articles where the A-S word is treated together with the Norse one, and I don't see why it could not be done here as well. Best,--Berig 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Merlin

 * Supernatural does not imply "Deity", but only something beyond natural; it is also more easily recognized by the lay reader. I kept one of your usages of it, but retained "supernatural" in the intro for that reason. I also changed back some of your style edits, such as converting to British spellings and unstandard characters (specifically the "ae") and your changes of the date format to CE. Most of your edits were good, but it struck me that some of the language was overly flowery for a general purpose encyclopedia. But as I said most changes were good, keep up the good work!--Cúchullain t/ c 06:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Cask of Amontillado
Hey, thanks for all the additions to The Cask of Amontillado! I'm glad to see someone besides me making legitimate, interesting expansions to this article! I hope you don't mind, but I was going to go in later and do a little bit of clean up. Feel free to watch over my shoulder and let me know what you think. If you have any, it could probably use more sources for a broader analysis. But, anyway, keep up the good work! --Midnightdreary 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the whole section sorely needs citations to several sources. It also would help if you spelled "Fortunato" correctly! :) Anyway, I'm probably going to take out those large block quotes as unneeded; paraphrasing works just as well. Other than that, there's not much clean-up I can do until the citations are added. How many sources are you using? --Midnightdreary 01:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

BC(E)
please stop doing unmotivated edits to calendar styles, as you did on Old European hydronymy and Andronovo culture. See WP:BCE. dab (𒁳) 09:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

see WP:MOSNUM. When you are actively developing an article, you are free to use BCE. No not use smallcaps or dots: ''Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted and upper-case—to specify the era. Be consistent within the article.'' Going around changing the style of articles you have no other involvement with is considered edit-warring. dab (𒁳) 07:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

your contributions
I see you have a history of adding unreferenced fringe speculations and essays to Wikipedia. Please do not do that. For example, stating "Mundilfari is one of the Norse names for what is commonly known as the Swastika" is completely unacceptable unless you can CITE some sort of reference. dab (𒁳) 14:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking from quoted text
Please do not link from quoted text, it is not good form and sometimes raises questions of original research when the link is piped. Quite frankly, you appear to be using too much quotation. Rather than quoting so much, you should explain things in your own words with citations to the source. The terms to be linked should certainly have been introduced in the article text at some point if they are important. If not, then quotations are being misused. Quotations are intended to be used as examples of or elaboration on concepts already introduced in the article, not as a substitute for doing your own writing. IPSOS (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

 * My apologies, wrong user. Sorry! Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 17:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic tradition
I see that you're is adding a lot to this page today. However, we have only recently been through a deletion process, and my understanding of the outcome was that this page merited existing as a disambiguation, but that there was a great deal of uncertainty about whether it could be expanded on reliably. You haven't been adding sources for what you add; can you please do so? Otherwise, I think we'll have the same problem as we did a few months ago: a page that is essentially original research. I would add that the writing style you are using is extremely dense and impenetrably academic -- can you please try to write more accessibly? thanks. bikeable (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh?
I am totally confused by your edit summary here: deleted interwiki in lead quotation: as in a features article this is a clear infraction of Wikipedia's MoS. You removed an internal link, not an interwiki link, and how can you have an "infraction" of a guideline? It's a suggestion, not a hard and fast rule. Guettarda 04:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated duplication of Talk:Intelligent design
Could you please refrain from duplicating content in Talk:Intelligent design as you did here andhere -- it is extremely disruptive.

Also, unless and until you are in a position to recommend changes to the article, back by WP:RSs, your rants on Eastern religion there are purely WP:SOAP. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 06:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Polytheistic (and non-Christian) points of view on intelligent design?
Has anyone given thought to polytheistic povs on intelligent design? And non-Abrahamic concepts of same? if so, that ought to go into the article. If not, say that and cite sources, and maybe look for a reason. Thank you. 204.52.215.13 03:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Find some substantial interest in ID from anybody other than conservative (and mostly evangelical) Christians in ID and we'll look at it. Find WP:RSs of the same and we'll include them in the article. I have seen no sign of any interest at all in ID outside the Abrhamic religions, and nor any sing of interest in the ID movement outreaching outside them. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 03:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, because I had a similar thought while reading the article. Not whether there is a polytheistic POV on ID, but that there is a logical question to pose to the assertion that the Christian God is the designer: Assume for the sake of discussion that the fundamental tenet of ID is true. What evidence or basis does the DI assert to support that the designer is that God, versus, say, the ancient Greek gods of Homer, the Roman gods, etc.? Those belief systems also offered explanations for natural phenomena (e. g., thunder.) This is not OR -- it is a logical point that it seems some of the authoritative parties in the controversy would have raised. Have they? If so, what was the response of DI? Looking forward to the answer from those knowledgeable on the article subject. If no RS in the controversy has raised this objection, then disregard (and delete this post). Thanks! Unimaginative Username 04:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design does not necessitate Creationism
In the Dzogchen Nyingma (& Bonpo) Vajrayana Buddhism of the Himalaya the Five Pure Lights (of which "Everything" and "Nothing" is constituted) are the Divine Intelligence, the Mysterium Magnum, of Dharma and the Dharmakaya. The Five Pure Lights, the subtle basis of the Mahabhuta, are uncreated and self-manifesting (refer Pratitya-samutpada): therefore, "Intelligent design" does not necessarily depend upon, necessitate, nor entertain, Creationism.

Thanking you in anticipation

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 03:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this comment, but the existence of a religion that believes in a "divine intelligence" in no way disproves that the argument/hypothesis/movement named Intelligent design is a form of Neo-creationism and thus Creationism. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 03:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument you attribute was neither implied nor stated. This article is not just to do with the organised movement nominally identified as "Intelligent design" just as the argument from design is not Christianity dependent.  Moreover, "intelligent design" and "creation" are not mutually dependent; where intelligence spontaneously manifests:  refer nondualism.  You mention "belief" and "religion" in your comment:  no "belief", "religion" and/or "faith" is necessary or required in direct experience of Divine Intelligence.  Dialogue does not entail "either" and "or", the operator "and" and the spirit of inclusion and unity is sadly missing in this article. The co-existence of truths within Truth is a fundamental teaching inherent in, and evident throughout, natural systems:  refer Deep ecology.


 * Blessings in blood


 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 04:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAP was employed as a rationale for removing this dialogue string from this page. This is exposition and explanation.  Please do not remove this dialogue-string from this talk page as it contains significant content and directions for future inclusion and iteration of the article.


 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 05:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Modern Runic Magic and Discourse
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Modern Runic Magic and Discourse, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Modern Runic Magic and Discourse is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Modern Runic Magic and Discourse, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 09:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

your moves
I will ask you once again, politely, to refrain from moving articles around without discussion, especially repeating moves that have been reverted before, or articles that have a history of discussion of the proper title. All you are doing is wasting other people's time. --dab (𒁳) 09:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

warning
your behaviour is deteriorating. Please don't copy-paste entire articles to my talkpage. Take your time to review policy (and Etiquette while you're at it), and try to avoid wasting the time of other editors. Pull your own weight. --dab (𒁳) 10:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Next time you copy and paste articles to user's talk pages, may get your account blocked Jrod2 15:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your editing of the Dolpopa page - its much appreciated! John Hill 05:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing and footnoting
You are adding a lot of material without bothering to source and footnote it. Please add your sources as you add material. I believe Buddhipriya has brought this requirement to your attention before. IPSOS (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Vajrayana
You added "In Mantrayana lineages the phurba and singing bowl hold this application and symbolism." I have no idea where you got this from? Mantrayana and Vajrayana are generally treated as synonyms?rudy 15:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncited "fact" bites
Please don't add uncited information to article. Padmasambhava was said to have been born from the heart of a lotus. That's easily found. Any other parentage needs to be verifiable. A source citation is required. 19:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you make a change other than an "undo", please don't use undo and leave an undo edit summary. Say what you did. GlassFET 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mongolian Steppe
A tag has been placed on Mongolian Steppe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion A1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  03:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Poi (juggling) cont
Please don't add to this article dubious information with uncited analogies to martial arts. Please also consider the feedback on the Talk page here and here- Geronimo20 06:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do some historical investigation into Maori culture and IMPROVE the quality of the article. Comparable disciplines are evident throughout Southeast Asia. Remember, a flower and a fan in the Martial Arts may be employed as a weapon.


 * Namaste in agape; walking my talk in Beauty:  B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 04:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that 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 three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. =Axlq 05:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation block
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Sam Blacketer 20:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that your idea that there is a connection between Poi and martial arts is an interesting one. It would be a very cool thing to write an article about; maybe you could submit it to a martial arts journal or a juggling journal, and if it's well written and well reasoned, you might even see it published.  I totally encourage you to do that.  But although I think your idea is very interesting, I think that it isn't a proven or provable fact, and that makes it what we call original research.  We'd love to have you continue participating when your block expires, if you can help by adding proven facts while holding your ideas for some more appropriate forum. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm ALWAYS in trouble! *heheheheheeh* B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 04:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that recently you carried out a copy and paste page move. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Oxymoron83 13:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:MOVE now and stop these cut&paste page moves! --Oxymoron83 13:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits such as these are unacceptable
You should cite reputable sources for such edits and even if you find them such contestable views should be phrased as an explicitly attribute opinion. (The religious scholar wrote that ...etc). Andries (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

warning
B9, you have been warned often enough now. All you are doing at this point is wasting people's time. If you continue with your disruptive moves and redirects, I will block you from editing without further warning. dab (𒁳) 15:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Bodymind
I am very unsatisfied with the quality of this article, and nearly deleted it. I have ennumerated my issues on the talk page and am engaging who I percieve to be the articles main authors. Your contribution in the discussion would be appreciated. --Shaggorama (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Rongzom Mahapandita
A tag has been placed on Rongzom Mahapandita, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hammer1980 ·talk 01:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Mudra
I reviewed your reference. It doesn't say what you claim it says. I'm removing your original research again. IMO, the most that can be said about the subject is that mudra is also employed in some martial arts. Surely there is a way to integrate that fact without projecting your own opinions about derviation or identity? Please do not revert the removal again, but either find a way to integrate the facts, and only the facts, or discuss on the article talk page, please. GlassFET 16:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks
I have discussed only your edits, not your person. Please refrain from making personal attacks. If you don't understand what I mean, I've pointed them out here. GlassFET 00:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from editing my talk page to expose your personal attacks again. GlassFET 00:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand the subjective nature of your anger. Go practice some more. GlassFET 00:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your projection onto me of non-understanding, anger, a need to practice and personal attacks is false and unfounded.
 * Walking my talk in Beauty
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My talk page
Your comments on my talk page are not welcome. Corrupting my user name is another form of insult and personal attack. Clearing one's talk page is one acceptable form of talk page maintainance, and I don't have to leave your petty insults there if I don't want to. As for reports, I've filed a report on the Wikiquette alert board, here. It is now my request that you cease altogether posting on my talk page. Thank you. GlassFET 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any report or investigation you may initiate will be most appreciated!


 * Why is it that you clear all discussion on your talk page?


 * Glass be mindful of Transparency and that which you VET


 * In Bliss


 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TALK, a user is allowed to refactor comments if they are perceived to be incivil, remove discussions or archive them on their own talk pages. Revert warring, such as what you have begun at User talk:GlassFET, is not generally tolerated.  Seicer ' (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Incivil" is non-standard English adposition. NB: Source: (accessed: December 20, 2007)
 * Ah
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 05:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

GlassFET as possible sockpuppet of Ekajati
When appropriate may a Wikikin please investigate as to whether GlassFET is a possible sockpuppet of Ekajati aka IPSOS? I would appreciate being informed in due course.

Blot: Blessings in blood

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 03:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * RE the above submission you made at WP:RFAR...RFAR is not the correct spot for this. This is better suited for WP:SSP and/or WP:RFCU...for the arbitration committee. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it also from WP:RFCU since it appears the check has already been performed by Blnguyen. -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk, checkuser clerk, 23:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

Forgiven
Your'e forgiven, but it's not filed correclty, pls follow directions on at WP:SSP — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

GlassFET as possible sockpuppet of Ekajati
When appropriate may a Wikikin please investigate as to whether GlassFET is a possible sockpuppet of Ekajati aka IPSOS? I would appreciate being informed in due course.

Blot: Blessings in blood

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 03:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

An apology
Hello B9 - I want to apologize for my tone in responding to your edits in Shentong most recently, and in other edits. It's clear to me that you know a great deal about Buddhism (and many other things) and really do want to contribute to make Wikipedia ever better. My frustration, sometimes, is in the way you choose to express things, which, I feel, sometimes do not serve the interest of clarity -- I'm thinking specifically: what would an 'outsider' -- someone who knew nothing about Buddhism generally, Tantra specifically or especially Dzogchen come away with after reading some of your contributions? Be that as it may, I for my part will try to engage in a more constructive dialogue with you as these arise in the hopes that we can work together, and also with other editors. Thanks very much for all your work. Zero sharp (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bodymind
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Bodymind, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dzogchen Rinpoche
Hi Hummingbird. Feel free to expand the following I started:

<font style="color:#fef;background:black;">♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     <font size="-4"><font color="Black">Talk? 19:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please improve your edits, make them more clear, slow down
Please consider the amount of work others have put into Wikipedia. When you come along and change so much improperly, that is more work for other editors. You seem to add far too much that is unclear and needs to be edited, as the main issue, among others. Judging by others comments here you have caused some problems. Please do not add so much and so fast, especially if it is wrong, not referenced, or unclear. Editors should work together. You have some personal points of view that are not universal and widely accepted. First and foremost are good and clear definitions and real examples for articles in Wikipedia. Again, please improve your edits, slow down, and try to not cause problems. 209.202.52.19 (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The key lexical item in the misattribution aforecited is "seem". What a load of unSEEMly codswallop! It is not the nature of a Hummingbird to be slow: for the Ancients as the hummingbird is 'everywhere' it is 'nowhere'...when the hummingbird hovers energy is projected in all directions! Svaha... and it is completed in Beauty.
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 06:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I proved my point with your last response. You use words and sentences in ways that are not common for most people that use the English language. I hope that you will write some clear sentences that most people can understand with a good degree of ease. Language is a tool to not be abused. If we cannot communicate easily and well with it, then something is failing. What is wrong? A reminder that you are a human, not a humming bird. Humming birds do not need humans to compete with their great speed and ability to fly.

At the very least, this is a funny conversation, and I suspect that you think that you can literally fly. I mean no harm. Please respect other editors, and try to communicate more clearly. Please.

Thanks for reading this. 206.45.177.234 (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In your retort the key points of entry are "guess", "compete" and "suspect". I do NOT guess nor gamble (as per Vedic injunction), my writing comes from a position of knowledge and experience. I do not "compete": as there is no "I", there is no competition. You and your assertions are "suspect" and ill-informed...become a registered user for transparency...the gall...pure psychological projection...have you qualitatively improved Wikipedia at all? Provide some concrete examples. My writing is crystal clear, though requires close, attentive reading and contemplation. Unfortunately, in this digital age, most people in my lived experience are increasingly illiterate: I will not further illiteracy and 'dumb-down' my language. Get a good dictionary.
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 00:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop it at once
Cursing other editors is completely unacceptable, and any further personal abuse or threats (and this is both, for those who believe in such things) directed towards other users will result in your being blocked from editing. -- The Anome (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No threat nor abuse was evident in truth. Parse the syntax of the sentence. Your censure is unwarranted.
 * Vajra *laff*
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You have now been blocked for 31 hours for reinstating the abuse/personal threats referred to above. (diff: ) If you repeat this behavior, you will be blocked again, for longer periods. -- The Anome (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Shraddha
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive tagging & readability
Are five tags really necessary? Considering I am improving an article that was non-conforming this is rich. It detracts from the readability of the article.

Ah

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 09:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Vaishnavism
The two of you seem to be having a content dispute. I'd suggest making use of WP:THIRD, and if that doesn't work then filing a WP:RFC. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Response
Dear B9 Hummingbird. It is obvious from your talk page that along with an enthusiasm to contribute to Wikipedia, you also have a number of issues in regards to collaborating and communicating with fellow Wikipedia editors. After having little or no input to an article, you storm in and add a whole host of information in regards to one specific and hightly controversial sect, without any prior discussion, and then get upset when the information is reverted. What do you expect? I will state it again here, that in my opinion as a Wikipedia editor, the information you added is better included elsewhere (i.e in the Tantra or Sahajia articles). At best we could have some small mention and a wikilink.

Rather than enter into any discussion you claim that the whole article is biased, and then add several comments to the talk page, making it even harder for anyone to enter into a sensible or calm debate. I am willing to discuss things if you are willing to act sensibly. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for 72 hours for edit warring. Please use talk pages to reach consensus rather then fighting with reverts. Spartaz Humbug! 13:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to give a reason for the unblock. Reviewing admins please see here. Spartaz Humbug! 13:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Oxymoron83 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In trouble again!
There I was minding my own business and AGAIN I am in trouble! *heheheeheh* B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox Annexures
User talk:B9 hummingbird hovering/Annex1

Some tips
Hello. Thanks for your good work on Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that editing articles on Wikipedia, in general, can be done more carefully and constructively. One problem to be solved is how to improve editing so that various, conflicting arguments can be written out without limiting the article to only one or two sides, or having one side dominate. However, in the English language, one interpretation will probably dominate, or be more common, in some cases. I hope we all can learn to edit in a constructive way since Wikipedia articles were intended to be improved by many authors, working together, and not against each other. Some articles have been refined over years by many, and many words were carefully chosen. There are good rules to follow at Wikipedia. I wish you well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephprymak (talk • contribs) 11:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Tantra
In my opinion, the sentence that you continue to re-add to the Tantra article, violates Wikipedia's fundamental neutrality policy. Instead of evaluating and commenting on a quote from a source, why not simply present another source that offers a differing viewpoint? Should we seek a third opinion on this? TheRingess (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Vidya
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Vidya, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Mengagde
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Mengagde, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism and The Tanguts
Elliott Sperling has two articles about Buddhism and the Tanguts, one published in the Tibet Journal in the 80s (online), and another published fairly recently (like 2003) in Acta Orientalia Hungarica. Heather Stoddard also has a piece in the Alexander Macdonald festschrift 'les habitants de le toit de monde' or something like that. Leonard van der Kuijp has a brief article about a particular Buddhist pilgrame. Finally, Nishida Tatsuo has a whole chapter about Tangut Buddhism in his 'Seika no gengo to bunka' I have all of these except the last as pdfs, if you can give me an email address to send them to. Tibetologist (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Losar
Somebody (you yourself?) seems to have already flagged it as a current event. I regret that I know nothing about newswiki articles. Lima (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest posting it at Portal:Current events and the day that the festival began. Blessings to you also for this new Tibetan year <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">♦ King of Baldness ♦      <font size="-4"><font color="Black">$1,000,000? 11:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A few other places you might mention this are at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries and In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 12:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Losar
Hi! Thanks for the communication about Losar. I notice it is mentioned on the Main Page of Wikipedia today in the "On This Day" section. Did you manage to get that happening? If so, good work! I must admit I am not very good at working out how to get things listed on the Wikipedia - I have finally got my head around how to get items listed in the "Did you Know" section - but nothing else on the Main page. I was going to start searching out how to list it when I noticed it has already been noted - so I thought I would leave it for now unless you would still like me to follow through further. Cheers and best wishes, In loving kindness, John Hill (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Losar - Current Event
Hi B9: I'm almost certain there's a template for current events, you might try searching for that (I usually enter 'Wikipedia:Templates' and follow from there -- there's a big page describing all of them). But, I'm not sure that's the appropriate template as I think it's for current events that are happening and have not happened before; an annual holiday might not be the intended use -- but I could be wrong, and even so you may find a more appropriate template. Sorry I can't be of more help. Taski Delek! Zero sharp (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi
You seem to have a prolific breadth of knowledge on this subject, specifically thoughtforms, in this context. There's been some discussion surrounding it, and we're not sure what to do. I think, as do other people, that there is a good article here &mdash; however, it's really, really hard to pull out neutral and verifiable material and a lot of the statements you make look like original research. I've rewritten the first (exegesis) section in a way which I think is more comprehensible to a general reader, and is true to what you intended. However, it needs a lot of sources to be provided, and (naturally) I can't. That's why I'm calling on your expertise to source these statements. Can you help out here? Take your time; we don't want to "destroy" you hard work or anything &mdash; just make it more comprehensible, and in line with Wikipedia's policies. --Haemo (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't revert text to a version which appears to be entirely your own original research. If you disagree with my rewrite, then feel free to change parts of it so that it's closer to what you meant &mdash; however, remember that Wikipedia articles should be accessible to non-experts in the field, and the non-standard use of English work (esp. technical words from other fields) is confusing.  Virtually every paragraph in this article needs citations to back up the claims it makes.  By reverting without adding those sources, you're tacitly admitting that the sources don't exist. --Haemo (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

HI friend. See Tenzin Gyatso. Gradually we can get shot of those hounding blue translation boxes and can add it to the main one. Looks much better doesn't it. If you could help merge boxes for many of the dalai or panchen lamas this would be great -I'm afraid I'm a bit busy adding french towns at present. Have you noticed how the article count has jumped from 2,225,000 to 2.236,000 in a two or three days? Well thats me! Oh you could archive your talk page its a bit long and my computer grinds to a halt!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 22:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

ISKCON work group or subproject?
Hello. I see you have made contributions to ISKCON related articles. If you are interested, there is a discussion concerning an ISKCON subproject located at, ISKCON work group or subproject. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)