User talk:Buddhipriya/Archives/2007/September

BR
I reverted his trolling and your good-faith attempt at replying. I have concluded that it is better not to feed the troll and simply ignore any of his postings that do not directly relate to article content, since there is little chance that this user will reform anytime soon. Abecedare 08:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for informing me of your strategy. I still would prefer to see an active effort mounted to get either a complete or topic ban implemented, but I agree with Dab's comment that beyond a certain point we are no longer bound to react to every provocation. Buddhipriya 08:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In my experience it is less work to simply deal with his mainspace edits and ignore/refactor the ramblings on talk pages. Of course, it is just a matter of time before this editor is banned from wikipedia. With him working so hard in that direction, there is no point in our wasting time and effort to force the issue. :-) Abecedare 08:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahabhashya
Yes.I am happy to see that you have already added tags instead of complete blanking of jha's edits.-Bharatveer 09:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I deleted all those tagged statements (cf. Talk:Mahabhashya for reasons). These deleted portions will find a better place in the article on Sanskrit grammarians. -VJha 09:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

References in Ganesha
Can you please add references for info regarding Ganesha's children in Ganesha and Consorts of Ganesha.--Redtigerxyz 11:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I will do the best I can, given that I will not be able to spend much time on Wikipedia this week. Those two articles will be priorities for me, as I am removing many other articles from my watch list.  Unfortunately looking up citations takes time.  Please add fact tags on any items that are priorities for you, and I will make an effort to work on fact-tagged items on Ganesha as highest priority, with Consorts next.    Buddhipriya 05:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You are engaged in an edit war
You are edit warring in article Kama Sutra, you are warned of 3RR Rule. Other side is reverted by a different user please look into history. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please make your case on the talk page for the article, not here. Your method of counting who supports what is quite selective. Buddhipriya 04:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you are the only user reverting, you will be reported of 3RR, and consider this as warning before reporting you for violation of rule. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, Lara, that's a pretty threatening tone to take against a user who has only reverted once today. You do realize that you can't report somebody until their 4th revert within 24 hours, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IPSOS (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, if it was threatening tone. From previous history of his edits it is very obvious that he will continue edit war. IPSOS, feel free to leave comment in RFC, thanks. Lara_bran 04:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop! You are canvassing other editors for their support. Canvassing is similar to spamming someone with emails, in this case a wikipedia user, and not allowed. I wonder those people whom you canvassed repeatedly, like User:DaGizza did not point you towards this policy. Only those people who are interested/watching an article can comment, you cant ask somebody to interfere, that is considered as you troubling them. You can use rfc/article talk page only for other users, dont spam their userpage with your request to interfere. I lately noticed that your earlier "consensus" for removal of chapter name is also by canvassing your friends. Lara_bran 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For example like this:User_talk:DaGizza, User_talk:DaGizza etc. This is similar to email spamming, you are troubling them. Please refrain. Let anybody follow your contributions and come to your article, that fine, but what you are doing is not fine. Thanks. Lara_bran 03:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also you bite newcomers, man, you are impossible. Lara_bran 04:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha copyedit and proofread complete
Hi there! I'm sorry I disappeared mid-edit--I'm planning my wedding and had to take a wikibreak. However, when I saw the article come up for final proofread on the League's page, I couldn't resist! Its a lovely article and you've done a great job. Cheers! Galena11 20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Galena, it is so nice to hear from you. I am happy to hear of your upcoming wedding.  You made such great improvements to the article I hope that you will continue to work on it now and then.  Please let me know if I can be of assistance in any way. Buddhipriya 23:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the star! Good luck at FA--I'm pretty confident that you'll do well. :o) Galena11 14:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciation
FYI, User:Lara_bran turned out to be (one of many) sockpuppet of User:Vinay412, and possibly User:Kuntan and has been indefinitely blocked. See here (I gave him/her a warning for edit-warring once, and the page was on my watchlist). Anyway, time to move on. Cheers. Abecedare 03:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Very interesting development, thank you for telling me of it. I have not been around much and have missed all of the exciting action it seems. Buddhipriya 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha
You may not like my recent response to your accusations of WP:OR. I believe you are a sincere and good editor, but you are a victim of a faulty methodology (take it easy, I am not accusing you,really). You spent so much time and energy over this article, and did a lot of good work there, but why it did not occur to you that original sources ought to be consulted ? There are all sorts of secondary sources, good and bad. Pro-Hindu and anti-Hindu sources are equally unreliable, but unfortunately the bulk of anti-Hindu books masquerade as impartial studies, which deceives you. Really impartial works are rare in such fields. I do not know whether you will be able to change your attitude and method. -VJha 20:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cf. Talk:Ganesha's section Buddhipriya's use of wrong sources,  where I have posted an answer to your reply (of which I was not aware). -VJha 14:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please discuss content issues on the talk pages for the articles, not here. Regarding my use of primary sources, it may surprise you to know that when I first started editing on Wikipedia I tended to quote primary sources uch more than I do now.  Please read WP:V.  Buddhipriya 03:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the details from Krishan and Thapan. They are now on my must-read list :-) rudra 06:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Indian Religions
The article is being hacked by 2 ultra-orthodox Jain editors. See what you can do there. I don't have the time to write 500 word essays in the talk page daily. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 15:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I probably will not be able to do much there because my time on Wikipedia is very limited right now.  This sort of conflict is a symptom of a larger problem with the Wikipedia environment, namely a lack of collaborative spirit.  The current conflict has to do with aspects of the history and beliefs of the Jain religion that I am not qualified to comment on.  Therefore I have no immediate opinion to give on any specific point.  If there is any way to reduce the level of conflict among the parties, it would be a good thing. Buddhipriya 04:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dharmic Traditions
Dear Buddhipriya

When you have time, I would very much appreciate if you would please advise me of the party line for Dharmic Traditions? As we cover similar terrain, you may have noticed it is one of my favoured terms...I am one of the smarter syncretists on Wikipedia.

I noticed the discussion marked for deletion regarding terminology...Dharmic Traditions was in common currency when I studied History of India at Uni. I would have very much like to have been included in that discussion. Someone asserted that Dharma had a different definition in each of the Dharmic Traditions...which made me blink and preen my whiskers... The traditional dharmic answer to such foolery would be: Blind Men and an Elephant...

Aum Ganapati Namo Namahah

B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know what the "party line" may be, or indeed which party may have what line. My personal opinion is that the phrase "Dharmic Religions" is a neologism favored by some right-wing political groups in India as a sort of "all-India" catchphrase without academic support. I have not followed the specific article since this renaming discussion took place and do not plan to become involved with it. Buddhipriya 02:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
Hi Buddhipriya, I was wondering if these comments were in response to my comments, since I did not suggest (nor do I support!) merging Vinayaka with the new article, nor do I believe that the discussion on the historical development in the Ganesha/Historical development of Ganesha articles is at all misleading. IMO, the new article will allow us greater room to eventually expand the information on the historical development of Ganesha, rather than correct it. At the same time, the discussion in the "Ganesha" article can be made shorter - for example we do not need to present the detailed evidence about the absence of Ganesha from the Vedas and epics, but can make more declarative statements summarizing the scholarly consensus instead. Does that make sense ? Abecedare 04:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for working so quickly to improve both the new Historical article and rework the main article. I think I did misunderstand your prior comment, which I took to be a suggestion to merge the Vinayakas article.  Thank you for clarifying that.  The other comment regarding the fact that I think the current article is fairly accurate as it stands was based on comments by other other editors who have characterized some of the academic material in a negative way.  I am sure it will all work out for the best.  Fortunately there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Buddhipriya 04:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify my previous Vinayaka comments: we had an interesting discussion on Vinayakas as a pre-cursor to Ganesha on the Ganesha talk page, and have good references on for the topic. Adding those details to the Ganesha page would have been giving them undue weight, but the new page will allow us to discuss that topic, along with other proto-influences as discussed in Krishan, Michaels, Narain and I assume Thapan (which I haven't laid my hands on yet!). Of course, Vinayakas are important entities on their own, and independent of their connection with Ganesha, so the article on Vinayakas should be retained. Again, this proposed expansion of the HDoG article is only a nascent work plan that should be fun to implement over the next few week and months, and not some urgent requirement. Regards. Abecedare 04:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)