User talk:A Ramachandran

There is no spoon. My responses may seem surreal to some. This place is very enigmatic to me. Like those things that sleep furiously, whatever they were. Oh yeah, now I remember, they were colorless green ideas ...

NOS
Thanks for pointing out the 5th entry. I overlooked it, but now I see why: it leads in several directions none of which are the one it should:  to an article named NOS (CDC operating system). — EncMstr 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Request
My I draw your attention on the discussion on inclusion of the diamond-cutter.org ling on the Michael Roach article? I am not sure if user:Ekajati who rejects it is still neutral. See also the past discussion of it. Thanks. Maybe we ask two Admins for help as well. --Kt66 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

JBC and ISBNs
Hi! I'd like to point out that as of Jan 1 2007, ISBNs are now 13 digits instead of 10, which is why I put those in the JBC article. You can read more at International Standard Book Number and on the Library of Congress website. The ISBNs I found are from Amazon.com - here and here. I'm not an expert on either JBC or on the reliability of Amazon, but those looked valid to me. As for the "eds" part of the Inge book, your change looks right to me. You can find out more about the template at Template:Cite book. And by the way - thanks for all the work you've done on that article! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot
Thank you for your reply. I will ask the notice board and will ask them for advice. --Kt66 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mantra
Hi Ramachandran. Let me assure you that my tags on mantra has little to do with WP:POINT. That paragraph is sourced from an article written by a Nitin Kumar, an employee of Exotic India, a company that sell Aum motifs. This original research seems to be intended only as a promotion of their product, and is not supported by any kind of scholarship. Please see on your left the Tamil version of the syllable Aum. If the Devanagari symbol, which clearly comes from merging the devanagari "अ" (A) "ऊ" (U) and "ँ" (M), and not created by joining semicircles and dots symbolizing various things, is the Tamil symbol inferior in some way? What about the Gurumukhi, Tibetan and Chinese symbols of Aum? The Exotic India Store website is not a reliable source of information, and this was my reason for adding the tags. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

B9 hummingbird hovering introduction and request
Hi! Where did you find that Namkai Norbu Rinpoche business? We were just editing Satchitananda at the same time :-D

[B9_hummingbird_hovering] 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It would be nice to see some other references. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links issue
Added Yoga Terms and definitions links because the whole article is weak on this instances. Hope you could consider it as reference not spamming. Thanks!

YogaJournal.com is basically a magazine. Meaning its a commercial website. Please be consistent in removing links otherwise you're just giving us a clue that you're protecting your own interest. Besides YogaJournal articles provided is very weak in content and don't add anything useful to this article. Find some other links that will explain the detailed history of Yoga not "brief history of yoga" which the description of the links in external links.

Your tag on my Talk Page
I do think the person is behaving like a [personal attack removed] -- which is a quite mild comment in view of his behaviour. But what puzzles me is where is a similar warning from you to that anonymous user (a sockpuppet for user Maleabroad, I suspect) ? Nothing. A bit odd, don't you think ? A bit of even-handednedd would be nice. I spend time correcting the text and adding diacritics and this guy comes along -- repeatedly -- and blanks all my efforts, and those of others, by a blanket revert. He shows no respect for any Wiki conventions, total contempt for other Wiki users and, might I add, insults them, with his insinuations about their religious affiliation.--Stephen Hodge 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice constructive reply. Well, why not save yourself the trouble and not get involved in things that have a very long history.  Less hassle for yourself and others.  If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing properly.  But believe me, a lot of people have remonstrated with this infuriating person to no avail.  He is quite happy to ignore anything anybody says or does just to get his own way.  Best wishes, --Stephen Hodge 03:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "Making demands" ? I haven't demanded anything from you.  I've asked you a couple of civil questions, and you, in your way, have answered them, which is fine by me.   So, let's drop it.  But, still, not a very impressive attitude from somebody who says on their user page that they aspire to become an Administrator.  Best wishes, --Stephen Hodge 03:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unusually quiet at Bharatanatyam today
Thanks for your persistence in dealing with spam.

By the way, it's been unusually quiet at Bharatanatyam for over 24 hours. I wonder if this perhaps caught people's attention:
 * Talk:Bharatanatyam

If the rumors of search engines using our blacklist are true, this could be problematic for kalakendra.com. Their spamming was so persistent and widespread there was little choice but to block them. --A. B. (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reversion errors
No, it was a stuffup, which is why I reverted myself with the summary "Oops" :) Orpheus 03:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for keeping an eye out for this sort of thing. It disturbs me that people try to use Wikipedia to push an agenda, especially when the agenda involves the assumption that only certain people may know The Truth, and everyone else has no right to challenge it. Orpheus 03:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes you have made to articles
They have been most helpful to me -- things like correcting my horrible spelling thus enabling me to complete a link. It's nice to experience a very constructive editor. Thanks! Sincerely, --Mattisse 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey! I was a fan of Ram Dass before he changed his name. Sincerely, Mattisse 13:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I first met him in the late sixties in San Fransicso. He was part of that whole Harvard group. I lived downstairs from Andy Weill, then interning at San Francisco General and now health guru. (Andy always claimed he got Leary fired from Harvard.) Alpert always led the way for me. Sincerely,  Mattisse 14:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. Bharatanatyam
Hello. Indeed this user seems to have at least an older account that he used to disrupt this article again. I've left him a level 4 warning. If he repeats his spam insertion to this article please report him to WP:AIV and mention that he's a sockpuppet of a persistent spammer. If further accounts appear then I'll fully protect the article, but currently that's not necessary. WP:RCU can also be used to confirm that a user has been using sockpuppets and have them banned. Regards,-- Hús  ö  nd  04:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * btw I request a checkuser for the sockpuppets here :Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Sselvakumar. It is slow but in principle we should be able to take them all (and the IP) out --BozMo talk 06:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism collaboration
You voted for Tantra, this week's Hinduism Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.--Bondego 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This should cheer you up
Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Sselvakumar --BozMo talk 22:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Edit
You're right, the colon works. Sorry! Moksha88 05:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

RfM on Michael Roach
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Michael Roach, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Intoxicant
I apologize for my over-hasty comment.DGG 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Swaminarayan Sampraday
Yes, there is, as soon as someone gets around to start creating it... per the discussion @ Bhagawan Swaminarayan. Sfacets 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest statement
Hi, thanks for the note. Yes, I am a teacher of YGS's organization. I haven't been editing the page for a while, but I noticed that the page is in a really sad state of affairs - and nobody without any conflicts of interest (whether pro YGS or otherwise) has undertaken editing it. I might mention that terminator iii also is a teacher of a "competing" organization - thus his intensity of reactionism. Therefore, we are left with a dilemma: should this page stay in its current lackluster state of affairs or should someone with a conflict of interest be allowed to edit the page and improve its quality? Your help would be appreciated in this regard. If you would like to volunteer to undertake a revision of this page, I'll be happy to supply you with any links to sources that I have regarding YGS and assist you in any other way that you might request. In my experience on wikipedia, I have found it rare to find articles being written by 3rd parties with no conflict of interest, especially with spiritual organizations that have not yet achieved large-scale pop recognition. If that were the case, then most of the most heated disputes would be non-existent. I wish this were the case. Hamsacharya dan 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I might also mention that many of the pages that I've attempted to edit in the past have met with high to enormous resistance from editors with conflicts of interest, making editing of those pages with objectivity impossible and futile. Those pages are to this day being "guarded" from being altered by these editors in a way that is unsatisfactory to them. I'm sure you must have run into this kind of behavior before. It makes editing on wikipedia very difficult. Hamsacharya dan 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, I just happened across this discussion, and just to add an opinion - I wouldn't see anything wrong with Hamsacharya dan editing articles, especially given that no other editor (I'm not counting the crazy ones here) has come forward to propose any additions to the article.


 * Even biased/COI content is better than no content - since this content can then be re-arranged and rendered neutral by third-party editors.


 * Let me know if you want to go ahead with adding to the article and if I can be of any help, Sfacets 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminator III
Immediately replaced the speedy delete template on his talk page. This user is clearly a sock of banned user NoToFrauds. Where should I report this? A Ramachandran 02:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You could try Suspected sock puppets--Henrygb 02:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 10:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

YGS
Thanks for putting in the effort to edit the YGS page. It looks fine in most respects. However, the "Differences with Traditional Views" sections is unfounded. The sources cited are taken out of context and in no way represent traditional views of Hindu vedanta or any oral or written tradition. These have been discussed ad nauseum in the archives, if you want to take a look. I believe this section was devised by "competing" editors with conflict of interest in an attempt to undermine the integrity of the page. I obviously have my own "conflict of interest", but I tell you with objectivity, that if you show this information to any Indian yogi, satguru, brahmin, or swami, or otherwise expert on the varied topics introduced in this section (Shiva Shakti Kriya Yoga, the personage of the yogi Gorakshanath, or the Sat Guru parampara) you will find that these stated "differences" are not in congruence with fact. The diff that I added to Sfacets talk page demonstrates some sources which elucidate this points of view (at the bottom). Hamsacharya dan 13:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath
Thanks for pointing this out - I'm aware that the article is being revived. Hamsacharya dan and I have talked about one of the other articles he's trying to get back to adding his Guru to, Kriya Yoga. I also notice Hamsacharya dan's comments here. I have no problem with the YGS article being a vanity or promo type of article (claims of being a SatGuru or a Master are typically absent from articles about self-realized Gurus on WP since it's unencyclopedic). But if there are other false claims that are unencyclopedic (with references showing they are false and unencyclopedic), then I'll take a closer look. As the article stands now, I'm ok with it, but I'll keep an eye on it. &#2384; Priyanath talk 16:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mind having the claim of being a satguru removed. Again, I'm not interested in editing the article if it will cause editors with conflicts of interest to start vandalizing the page.  I'd rather have the article deleted altogether.  I'm going along with this process only because both you (A Ramachandran) and Sfacets are guiding the process - thus leaving me out of the final decision making. My part in this is solely as commentator at this time, as I realize that though there is some info on YGS, neither are there enough 3rd party sources available to me on YGS to create a cogent full length biographical article, nor am I without a "conflict of interest" as an editor of this page.


 * But Priyanath does bring up a good point - I did make an edit (which was reverted) and subsequently initiate a discussion on the Kriya Yoga page regarding placing references to YGS on that page, as he is part of the modern history associated with that topic. This appears to be controversial and merits mediation if you have a minute to look.  Thanks Hamsacharya dan 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But YGS is not part of modern 'history' associated with Kriya Yoga. Many people make similar claims - a new one pops up every week (see "Mangeshda"). There is no notability, and certainly no verifiable proof that YGS met Mahavatar Babaji and received Kriya Yoga. And it is impossible to ever prove. I.E., it's unencyclopedic to add YGS to the Kriya Yoga article. And this is still an encyclopedia. &#2384; Priyanath talk 23:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is an appropriate place to have this discussion, but I'd be happy to come to some resolution at the Kriya Yoga discussion page if A Ramachandran is willing to mediate. Hamsacharya dan 02:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to have A Ramachandran mediate, if he wants to go there. By the way, I'm not opposed to the comments on the YGS page about his devotees thinking he's a Sadguru. I won't remove that statement. I appreciate the respect they have for him. It just isn't remotely encyclopedic, for so many reasons, like much of what you're trying to promote here on Wikipedia. &#2384; Priyanath talk 02:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd have to say that the "differences" section appears to be there to address precisely these non-encyclopedic claims. For example, if there was simply an identification as a guru, rather than a claim to be a Sat Guru, then there would be no point to the first "difference" and it could be removed. So, I guess it depends on how strong the desire is to assert one vs. how strong the desire is to remove the other. I'd happily assist Hamsacharya dan to both make the article encyclopedic and remove some if not all of the section he finds objectionable at the same time, if he is willing. A Ramachandran 02:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm very willing. I'd rather it be 100% encyclopedic.  Go ahead and make the changes Rama, and I'll comment if I find something unsatisfactory to me. Hamsacharya dan 04:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Offer to Mediate
Hello A Ramachandran. As you know, mediation has been requested for a dispute that you are involved in. I am willing to serve as the mediator in this case. To begin, simply indicate your acceptance of me as mediator either on my talk page or on the mediation page. I reccommend that you add the mediation page to your watchlist if you have not already. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your input on my talk page. Let me know if the NoToFrauds sock disrupts again (he says he's left WP for good, apparently). Cheers, --Fire Star 火星 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

136.159.32.180
136.159.32.180 is at it again, on the Hindu page. He's violated 3RR there (and I reported it) but I can't revert or I'll violate it too. Can you take a look and see what you think?

Thanks, Orpheus 01:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ,, etc. Orpheus 12:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Kelsang Gyatso
Regarding your revert. 08:33, 18 January 2007 A Ramachandran (Talk | contribs) (uh, no, you have to provide citations for your facts, see WP:V) the editor took that passage from the Shugden article. However I feel it is better to remove it, because the conflict is explained in the Shugden article in large and quite well and neutral. No need to expand it in GKG's article, I think. Regards --Kt66 01:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

YGS page
Thanks for that last note. To be clear, I was just trying to make a strong rational case. It's not a big deal. I hope you understand that I'm keeping out of the final decision making for a reason (to work towards resolution, and not to be iron-fisted against detractors from my opinion), and that I've not made a single edit since you signed on to mediate. I was not wikilawyering intentionally, nor to instigate conflict, but simply to demonstrate my point of view on the matter as fully as possible. I wrote a lot because it's a very confusing and ambiguous mess of a point, so it requires some modicum of comprehension. However, I will refrain in the future from wikilawyering and putting you to sleep. Please come back and mediate, if possible. I do not want to argue directly with other editors who have conflict of interest as I do. It has never worked well in the past. I will paraphrase that long boring commentary in a concise way, as you've requested. Hamsacharya dan 18:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes
Hi from England. It's 'chillis', not 'chiles'. Regards, Notreallydavid 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked in several places on the web (including the link you sent), and I'm humbled. My fault for coming from a country where not many people know Spanish (I'm in the non-knowing camp). Be well, Notreallydavid 02:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Feedback on YGS article
Thank you for mediating on what has been such a contentious article in the past. For the first time, it's beginning to read like an encyclopedia article.

Regarding the Differences with Traditional Views section, and those two sub-sections I added in the past, I'm fine with the entire Differences section being removed, with a couple of minor caveats:

1. If any more claims are re-added to the article purporting that YGS has met "Mahavatar Babaji", or that Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji is the same as "Mahavatar Babaji", then the second of the two Differences sections should be added back. 2. If any claims are made that ShivGB is the same as Mahavatar Babaji, then the first of those two sub-sections should also be added back.

Also, to make the article more encyclopedic, "perennial yogic techniques called Hamsa Yoga and Mahavatar Babaji's Kriya Yoga" needs to be changed to "perennial yogic techniques that YGS calls Hamsa Yoga and Mahavatar Babaji's Kriya Yoga", since it's just him calling the techniques that.

And "culminated with a visionary experience in 1967 of Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji" should be changed to "culminated with a visionary experience in 1967 of a person he calls Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji." All of these suggestions and changes, I believe, make the article more encyclopedic. Thanks again, &#2384; Priyanath talk 02:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you feel these changes are appropriate, and Hamsacharya dan is fine with them, then I would appreciate you making the changes - in order to prevent any later edit-warring. Thanks, &#2384; Priyanath talk 02:09, 22 January 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) 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Be Here Now.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:Be Here Now.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)