User talk:Buddhipriya/Archives/2007/May

Maleabroad
He seems to be active again. See my ANI posting. Perhaps it's time to contact his school and/or get his lab range-blocked. Abecedare 02:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would support doing both actions concurrently. Buddhipriya 02:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Tom Dawson would be the person to write to (unless we decide to write to a faculty member, though the real life repercussions for maleabraod in that case may be too grave) the next time a sock appears. Do you know if there is standard "form" letter for this purpose somewhere on wikipedia ? Abecedare 02:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Abuse_reports which includes a procedure to get help from a Wikipedia investigator, who can act as a third party in the contact. I would start by getting some opinions from them on what to do next.  I would not contact the university in a way that could lead Maleabroad back to you, of course.  There are three "Contactors" listed on the procedure page that cover Canada, so perhaps asking them for opinion would be a good next step.  Regarding repercussions, I think the point is that we are trying to prevent further abuse, and if contacting the faculty is the necessary action to get that result, it should be done.  Tom Dawson appears to be a technical person who may be helpful in confirming the activity, but an administrative person who can enforce changes will probably need to be involved.  Wikipedia privacy procedures are the key issue to understand, and that is why I would get someone experienced in these contacts into the loop before launching on an action plan.  Measure twice, cut once.


 * Here are potential Candadian "Contactors" (I would recommend using a phone contactor as it is more likely to get noticed):


 * 1)  Contact: phone (US) and email worldwide. Here to help!
 * 2)  Contact: phone (N. America), e-mail, direct to certain ISPs (I work for a few)
 * 3)  Contact: Canada/US phone, email, possible postal in North America
 * 4)  AMA upon request. Phone: Canada. Email: Yes  Postal: I hope not! (Since Dec 2006)
 * 5)  Contact: Phone (US only) and E-Mail (English and Chinese speaking countries)
 * 6)  Contact: Phone (US/Canada), Email (English), US Postal. I've got way too much free time :-)

Buddhipriya 03:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done on keeping up with these. I've been following the notification page but you two always have matters well in hand. I fully support contacting the university, and I would suggest that going to the faculty is indeed entirely appropriate. Universities have strict rules on hate speech and discrimination, and frown on using their resources for spreading it. Don't forget that this guy is just a kid, really, and apparently one who needs a bit of real world exposure to dent his Internet God persona. Orpheus 05:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A thought - exams have just finished in Northern Hemisphere universities, correct? Maybe that explains the recent lull in activity. Orpheus 05:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for keeping this issue on your watchlist, as many hands make light work. There are still a lot of his socks that have not yet been blocked, so if you have time on your hands, you could pick away at some of them.  Interesting point about the exams, you may be right. Buddhipriya 05:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
A "good faith user" is trying to conflate Hinduism with Idolatry. Noting that Wikipedia's article of idolatry defines Idolatry as a sin, it gives the reader the implication that Hindus are sinners. However to reinvent the wheel, I invite you to a discussion on Murti puja and etc at Talk:Hinduism. Baka man  02:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Baka. Due to real life issues I will not have much time for Wikipedia over the next week or so, but thanks for getting in touch. I looked at the exchanges.  I honestly don't know whether to bother with some of the bad faith editors any more or just move quickly to ANI when evidence of continued disruption and POV pushing takes place.  It is a waste of time to try to convince people of religious issues.  The best that can be hoped for is to agree on a strong source regarding the issue in question, which seems to be regarding the concept of what a murti is.  The murti article is basically unsourced, but says: "Critics of murti worship equate the practice with idolatry. Proponents argue that murti worship consists of veneration of the image or statue as the representative of the Divine, or as the 'manifest presence' of the transcendent God, while idolatry objectifies divinity as the material object itself. In such a sense, a murti would be better translated into common English parlance as 'icon,' (or an image) rather than 'idol'."  I think that formulation, while unsourced, is not bad and fairly states that some people consider this practice to be idolatry, which is a very loaded word.  Ask for sources. Buddhipriya 18:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It boils down to the reliable sources. Merriam Webster and the American Heritage dictionary give "idolatry" a negative connotation. That fails NPOV. Btw, thanks for removing the section on Hinduism from the idolatry page. Baka man  00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is much patent nonsense. I have also commented on this at: Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_28 Buddhipriya 01:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal?
I've been on Wikipedia for 3 years. I've worked in the Wikimedia Foundation offices in Saint Petersburg, Florida. I am not a vandal. Perhaps the next time you accuse someone of such a thing, you can bother to check their editing history, or not so immediately jump to conclusions. Googie man 12:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't recall leaving a vandal warning for you. Can you provide a diff to help clarify? Buddhipriya 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Buddhipriya, Thank you for your efforts at cleaning up the mess at Hinduism and Idolatry regarding 'idol worship' and 'idolatry' in Hinduism. I'll be taking a wikibreak soon, so I won't be able to help any further&mdash;good luck and thanks, &#2384; Priyanath talk 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
Sorry, I only deleted one message because it sounded a little too dogmatic or bossy for my taste, as in: "The tags should remain", instead of the more humble "I think the tags should remain, for such-and-such reason." I don't need reminding of the probs in the article, and the tags are just telling me what I already know. I can assure you that I have learned lessons from this episode and I won't be making the same mistakes again. Further, if the article survives it will definitely be as an article on the book, so all the academic concerns won't apply.

Sardaka 09:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)