User talk:Freedom skies/Archive 4

Zen
If Huston Smith is microscopic, that makes Subhash Kak subatomic. JFD 18:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Which makes arrested communist criminals like Tang Hao subhumans then? Freedom skies 10:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. JFD 11:23, 21 January 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 may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. JFD 04:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you realize this, but one of the sources you cite on Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts has written:Best regards, JFD 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

mediation
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/Zen, 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.

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Think before accusing me
You pointed out the Jihadist user in my forums. If you had taken the time to notice, you would have seen that I have disagreed with him on every occasion. He is an obvious troll, and its not the first time an Indian user pretends to be Pakistani to do this.

I consider it very low of you to ruin an argument by falsely accusing me of such acts.

Please try to post comments of my actual arguments instead of replying to everything but the argument. You had to bring in PakHub, to counter the renaming of an article? what gives?

I have been told to solve these arguments through "dispute solving measures". Believe me I have tried, but you and your friends are not really helping.

-- Unre4L  ﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ  UT 18:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Zen
I did not list myself on the mediation. Someone else did that. Your behaviour is totally contrary to the consensus of the scholarly literature. That is clear. Paul B 11:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I signed my name so the mediation could go ahead, since all parties listed have to sign. It was purely to avoid scuppering the procedure. You, however, chose to scupper it anyway. Why was that? Are the mediators all Han nationalists too? If I see Chinese ethnocentrism distorting an aticle I hope I will be as opposed to as to any other nationalist distortion of history. Paul B 12:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam
Hi I couldn't understand why this user User:Netmonger is raising the above problem which totally irrelevant to Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam Page. As this is my Bio, could you help me to sort out this matter with him. Rajsingam 13:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 DoDoBirds Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

your edit to B R Ambedkar article
I do not understand why you removed following from the cost of change ? "There were protests by Ambedkar followers (at Ramabai Ambedkarnagar, Mumbai) but Police had opened up firing and it killed ten people. The officer who ordered this firing, sub-inspector Manohar Kadam has been charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder."

There was already debate about this and evidences were provided about it. The sentence prior to this para was about the same incident in Mumbai and the above para gives more information about that incident. Please provide the answers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.107.248.220 (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Orphaned fair use image (Image:RakshasaWarriorINK.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:RakshasaWarriorINK.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Something Quite Interesting

 * Something Quite Interesting

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas TarinthRajsingam 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I only posted a simple question: "Are you Arsath?"
Hi

I only posted a simple question: "Are you Arsath?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netmonger#Are_you_Arsath.3F

But He has come out with the following lenghthy statement about me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rajsingam

Kingrom Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas TarinthRajsingam 02:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the revert war
I already asked you on January 28 to provide clear descriptions of what you did, and described exactly what I meant:

Hello [name withheld],

Please bear with me; this mail is not as refined as I wanted it to be; I’m really tired now, since it’s already past 1 AM. But I wanted to let you know before another day passes for you.

I noticed you added two new issues. You certainly have a point about the intro, but I’m sorry, it is almost a month now since I asked to provide a list with issues. I can’t accept any major changes at this time anymore because I don’t want to hit a moving target.

I just took a quick glance at the changes in the article, and the first thing I noticed was that you removed the link to Muhammad bin Quasim. Why? If it was an error then I ask you to look through all of your changes to check that they did at least not lower the quality at the basic editorial level.

I’m running out of time for the mediation for this, and I need to reduce the time I am spending on this. There are a number of things you can do to help:

Please insert diffs when you talk about changes. (E.g. when you write “Tigeroo has seen to Islam's mention being removed from both the revival and the Muhammad bin Quasim sections.”, it means I have to go through the page history to find out what you might mean, which takes time for a task for which you don’t need a mediator.) Can you add the diffs to your existing statements in the talk page, please?

Another problem is that the display of diffs is often very hard to read. Often, one column gets expanded to the width of the whole screen, making it impossible to compare side by side. In other instanced, two seemingly identical paragraphs don’t match up. This can be mitigated by good edit summaries. I appreciate that you have started to provide some summaries. But I would prefer if you had clear descriptions of what you did. Please confer to how I did it: I always refer to the section that describes the change, so nobody has to guess. Since edit summaries can’t be changed after the fact, I would like you to please provide a table of your changes with the following headline:

(I’m using “change” different from “edit”. There are probably a dozen or more changes per major edit.)

Once this is done I will look at the changes and your pertinent comments.

Cheers,

Sebastian

You consistently ignored this request since. Then I added a template to the article that clearly states that you should refrain from controversial issues. You just reverted this for the second time.

Please refrain from any edits on the articles currently under mediation. Please also read Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26_Decline_of_Buddhism_in_India.

Thank you, &mdash; Sebastian 11:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply
(Moving the reply here from my talk page - please let's keep the thread together. &mdash; Sebastian 22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC))

Sebastian,

Kindly consider:-
 * I provided the link to Muhammad bin Quasim. See here for confirmation
 * I reported the changes in a table on the discussion page of the case. The format was a table, as you wanted.
 * I edited in the "revival" section, which Tigeroo edited before me. His editing constituted more than Dr. BR Ambedekar.
 * I edited in the bin Quasim section. You yourself said that I was free to edit there and mention additional details as well.

I have taken all of the steps you asked me to, Sebastian.

Take into account the constant removal of sourced content by Tigeroo, Sebastian. His agenda of removing every mention of Islam's damage to Buddhism should be clear by now. I don't believe you would advocate Quasim's destruction of a Buddhist holy shrine as "stamping his victory?"

The revert war was not started by me, Tigeroo kept on reverting the entire article. I just exercised my right to edit on the revival and Quasim sections, the well sourced text did not deter Tigeroo from incessant revrsion though. Is unilateral editing by one party involved fair? especially when the other party's edits are incessantly removed by that party.

I extend a request to kindly take that into account and restore my version, kindly judge the content for yourself before you take to the ramblings of the stubborn.

I will reply to Tigeroo's queries in a few hours.

Extending best regards as always,

Freedom skies 13:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor and obsolete points
Edit quality was only a small issue, but since you mentioned it I want to give you a reply. Yes, it is true that you reinserted the link to Qasim. But this wasn't what I was asking. I asked "Why [did you delete the link]? If it was an error then I ask you to look through all of your changes to check that they did at least not lower the quality at the basic editorial level." You didn't reply to that, and I have no indication that you checked all of your changes. But you don't have to reply - just let's forget about this; it is not really a concern for this mediation.

Table: OK, I see the table now. I thought it was written by Tigeroo, because I saw only his signature there (from his reply). Sorry about that, it was just a simple misunderstanding. Since Tigeroo reverted your changes, you don't have to worry about the tables anymore. My real issue at this time is the following, for which I'd like to dedicate its own section. &mdash; Sebastian 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Detailed edit summaries and exact references to agreements
I appreciate that you started in the right direction. What I'm missing is the level of detail I asked for when I wrote "I’m using “change” different from “edit”. There are probably a dozen or more changes per major edit.", and when I used "deleted “bringing Indian societies into contact with Islam”" as an example in the table. But I realize I could have been clearer about that.

I'm sorry that I can't fulfil your request for evaluating POVs at the level of large edits like this. Maybe “chunks” would have been a more descriptive word than “changes”. What I mean are small changes that do not spread over more than one sentence, or are just replacing one term. Please reply to my proposal on WT:MEDCAS/DoBiI and let me know if you agree.

Thank you, &mdash; Sebastian 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of context exclamation by User:Dangerous-Boy

 * NEVER! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dangerous-Boy (talk • contribs) 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Can we invite another mediator?
Your valued opinion is requested at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India. &mdash; Sebastian 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Freedom skies
Very well, I'll leave Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts alone for now. But as it stands, the "Opposing theories" does not accurately convey the work of the authors cited. Matsuda, Lin and Ling are concerned with the authenticity of Yi Jin Jing, not with the historicity of Bodhidharma. JFD 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. Good luck with your exams. JFD 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Zen
Knverma has merged the various Zen articles.

As a courtesy, I'm letting you know that I will be making edits to the Zen article, including the history section.

You already know that I'm a stickler for the official Wikipedia standards for reliable sources and the accurate representation of those sources.

I'm telling you this now because I do not want this to escalate into another edit war.

I'm also going to let MichaelMaggs and Saposcat know because they're knowledgable about the subject and you hold them in high regard. JFD 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Happy to do what I can, but I'm afraid I'll be away from tomorrow until the end of next week.--MichaelMaggs 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to wait for Saposcat and MichaelMaggs. As it turns out, I'm going to be busier in the near future than I expected. One change I want to make is removing information found in other, more appropriate Wikipedia articles. For example, Zen doesn't need Bodhidharma's biographical details. That's best left to the Bodhidharma article. JFD 21:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In your proposed Mahayana section, try to limit it to material that is pertinent to Zen only. Whatever you come up with might belong better in the Mahayana article, rather than the Zen article. JFD 21:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I wanted was to edit the Zen article rather than the Bodhidharma article. JFD 23:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make this sufficiently clear above but I wanted to edit the Zen article, not the Bodhidharma article.

Also, "both the Chan and Zen sects" is redundant. They're two names for the same thing in different languages; it's like saying "both eggplants and aubergines".

As for the connection of Bodhidharma with Buddhism "as a whole," he doesn't really figure in the Tibetan or Theravada schools of Buddhism.

As for characterizing Zen as "the Buddhism of China", though Zen is arguably the most prominent school of Buddhism in China, it is by no means the only one. JFD 06:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

your comments
your comments regarding this would be appriciated.Thanks.--Nadirali نادرالی

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bodhidharma
Actually, I don't see what the problem with the information given on Bodhidharma in the Zen article is. It is fine as it stands, though could perhaps be made more concise, as you seem to be attempting; the only thing that might need adding is a bit about, as your paragraph proposal shows, the place of honor Bodhidharma holds in the Zen tradition (incidentally, if mention is made of the kōan "What is the meaning of Bodhidharma's coming from the West?", you don't need to reference it because it's common knowledge; also, Wong Kiew Wit—with all due respect—is probably not the best reference to use, as someone from directly within the Zen tradition would be better; though again, mention of that kōan requires no reference at all).

On another note, the third paragraph in your proposal—the one about Shaolin Monastery—should not go into the article, as it is, from a broad view, largely irrelevant to the Zen article as a whole. Cheers. —Saposcat 05:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on February 14 2007 to Indian mathematics
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 48 hours. Aksi_great (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you are wondering what the 4 reverts were -, , , . - Aksi_great (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unblocked per your request over email. Stay away from the article for the remaining period of the block. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  15:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Zen
That's simply incorrect. Pure Land Buddhism, for example, is comparably influential and possibly even more popular. JFD 13:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point, but Tanlin is credited only with the preface to the Long Scroll, not the scroll itself.

Please don't confuse the issue. The earliest known document to characterize Bodhidharma as the first patriarch of Zen is still the epitaph for Faru, not the Long Scroll.

Bodhidharma's place of honor in the Zen tradition is something that developed over time, specifically the 6th to 10th centuries, and this can be observed by noting the growing importance that contemporary authors accord to Bodhidharma as the centuries pass. There is a reverence for Bodhidharma in the 10th century Anthology of the Patriarchal Hall that is simply not there in Tanlin's preface to the Long Scroll or Daoxuan's Continued Biographies, neither of which honors Bodhidharma as "the first patriarch of Zen". Broughton notes that the entry for Bodhidharma in the mid-7th century Continued Biographies is brief compared to others, nor does it speak of Bodhidharma in the reverential tones that the mid-10th century Anthology does.

I see that you've been blocked so feel free to respond here on your talk page rather than mine. JFD 13:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Zen
I've been sticking scrupulously to the high road and I don't appreciate the fact that you're not.

If you want to throw insinuations like "Taoist", "communist" or "agenda" at me, I can come right back with "Indian nationalist". And I've policed real Han chauvinists on Wikipedia so I have the diffs to prove your accusations false whereas you really, really don't.

As I said before, I didn't want this to become an edit war. Perhaps I should have made clear that I don't want this to become a flamewar either. So drop your cheap ad hominem BS.

JFD 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I did make suggestions. At this point we may as well just let Saposcat have at it, which would allow us the wikibreak you suggested. JFD 01:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A short note ...
I'm moving the discussion between you and JFD onto the Zen talk page, as it really belongs there for all to see, rather than hidden away on my talk page. Once I've done the move, I'm going to make a few brief comments as time allows. Cheers. —Saposcat 11:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:Sock (moving discussion on WP:Sock from User talk:IP198 to here)
Are you aware of WP:Sock, by the way ? I hope this is not repeated. Freedom skies 16:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dont threaten me on my talk page. I am aware of the policy, but i dont know how i broke it. Before i created a user name i used to edit under IP 198.7.249.101. After i became IP198 i stopped editing under the IP. The reason i mentioned that i was formerly 198.7.249.101 on my user page was so people could know that those edits belonged to me. IP198 17:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not enough edits were made from this account to explain you being apparently being well versed in WP. Your contributions overlap with another user. I will watch your contributions and you will face appropriate concequenses if you violate any WP Policy. The overlaps have been registered and more will be collected as evidence and produced on appropriate time.Freedom skies 17:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

are accusing me of being a sock of fowler&fowler? i suggest you look at the discussion of salwar kameez, you will see that we have different opinions on the matter. Also dont remove neutrality tags(Kashmir Conflict) without a discussion. Just because someone has a different opinion than you does not give you the right to discredit them. as for being well versed with wikipedia, how hard is it? IP198 17:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I will take into account the contribs and the pattern you and the user in question share. Socks have been known to "communicate" with each other to gain credibility. The level of expertise you show does not reflect you contribs accurately. Overlaps will be produced on appropriate times. Freedom skies 17:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I do have rather high intelligence, so that could explain why i have shown such "expertise". as for me being fowler, i suggest you look at the edits on History of Pakistan. when i was editing under the IP i changed the article to the ancient lands of pakistan, fowler changed it to the ancient lands of modern day Pakistan. also look at salwar kameez have completly different positions regarding the spelling, and national dress. He removed my edits calling them 'nationalistic". Please do not take an apparent grudge against fowler out on me. do not remove my edits by saying WP Sock. if you want to change the article for the betterment of the article go right ahead, but do not accuse me of being a sock it is really insulting. also do not remove the neutrality tag on the Kashmir Conflict without a discussion. I will be reverting the edits you have made. once again do not change my edits unless it is to improve the article, and stop accusing me of being a sock. IP198 17:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Very suggestive; speaking things like "I do have high intelligence" and blanking discussion page at the first hint of allegations of unexplained expertise. Having multiple IPs at one's disposal is not uncommon. I'll wait and watch. My opinion, the overlaps will stop and the editing on other topics will continue. The pattern and nature of the edits will be similar though. The initial overlap seems to be good enough for future references though. Freedom skies 18:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

i reverted your edits on iqbal, but i forgot that i was logged out. i used this IP 24.91.15.182. Please do not use this to this to block me. Also do not block the IP, as i am at a friends house so it is not my IP. As for balnking my talk page i like my page to be clean, thats the only reason. As for "I do have high intelligence", it was a joke. You were the one praising me for my "expertise" after all. IP198 18:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't be using the edits on Iqbal for references on probable future ocassions. Freedom skies 19:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Salwar
Can you stop inserting Indian subcontinent on the intro of this page. Afghanistan is not part of the subcontinent so the term is incorrect. Also in Bangladesh and India the salwar is worn mainly by women, while in Afghanistan and Pakistan it is worn by both men and women. IP198 20:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

chat2007
There is an informal discussion and a straw poll at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration/chat2007. Your input would be beneficial. --RF 08:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

ndf
Its quite balanced right now, as the mainstream view of the NDF is prominent. Remember that the reader can easily see what the NDF is after reading of their involvement in Marad and the killing of the CPIM activists. There's no need to waste time adding two words which will only lead to edit wars. Baka man  16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Rajkumar Kanagasingam
Hi

I have sourced number statements in Rajkumar Kanagasingam from the reference of this.

Could you do some clean up?Rajsingam 03:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ThanksRajsingam 01:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC
Please see: Talk:Indian_mathematics Feedback is requested for a problem on the Indian mathematics page, where two users have a disagreement about what constitutes reliable sources for claims in the article. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  05:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian mathematics
Please stop. If you continue to delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked. DavidCBryant 14:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh – I saw your preliminary response to the RfC on this article. Just so you'll know, I did investigate both sides of the story. I spent more than two hours looking at the page history, Fowler&fowler's talk page and contribution history, and your talk page and contribution history. In my opinion you ought not archive so many of the bad things others have said about you so quickly. At least you didn't delete them entirely. So that's a point in your favor. But if you get blocked, or have to take something to mediation, you might want to leave a record of that on your talk page for at least a month. It will improve your credibility. Anyway, I think I've already "heard both sides of the story". The history pages preserve a reliable record of what happened.

Best of luck with the examinations. Have a great day! ;^> DavidCBryant 17:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, no I disagree with not having sections on assessments. Many WP pages have such pages. I think it is best to have everything everyone's citations and all the sections out there so that the RfC comment-editors can decide for themselves. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.CiteCop 17:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The history of mathematics has been thoroughly explored academically, so there should be no shortage of peer-reviewed material on the subject. I understand that you are pressed for time because you have exams. Restricting yourself to peer-reviewed sources will save you time. What would waste your time - and ours - would be to argue that patently unreliable sources are the equal of peer-reviewed academic journals and such. CiteCop 18:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, well, I think it is best for the editors as a group to make that decision whether "assessment" sections should be there or not, etc. That is the point of the RfC is to elicit comments from everyone about all aspects of the problem.  Good luck on your exams!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fresh Start
Hi, Hope your exams are going well! I have put out a proposal on the Indian mathematics talk page that I think we should be able to agree upon. As I say there, I am happy to work with you on this article, especially on the Vedic section. I have ordered two books:


 * Thibaut, G. 1984.  ''Mathematics in the Making in Ancient India: Reprints of "On the Sulva-sutras" and "Baudhyayana Sulva-sutras." (edited with an introduction by Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya).  xxii + 134 pp., figs.  Calcutta/Delhi: K. P. Bagchi.


 * Dutta, B. 1932.  The Science of the Sulba: A Study in Early Hindu Geometry.  (Readership Lectures for the year 1931), xvi+240p. University of Calcutta Press.

I should have the first book by the middle of next week, and since the book has the actual texts (the translations), we should be able to figure out which statement is reliable and which not. How does that sound to you?

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

re: your note
I was away for couple of days, saw your note today and check the talk page link that you provided. I don't have much knowledge about this topic, although I came accross couple of good reference material. I will add the link soon. The problem with Vedic part is that the date of Veda's is based on mainstream IE estimate, so all vedic knowledge is given that date. I don't think that is correct, but till the date is reassed in mainstream scholarship nothing can be done about that. I will try to contribute where I can. Good luck with your exam.Sbhushan 01:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

RFC Request
I have requested that all editors hold a week moritorium on editting the Foreign Influence article for your exams. (They might not follow it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.) Good luck! Djma12 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Luck
Hi, Good luck in your exams! Thanks for writing back. Will keep you posted on how things proceed. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)