User talk:Kalidasa 777

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, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

TheRingess (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

stub tags
Hi Kalidasa: I've just stub-sorted Transpiranto, and I notice you added the stub tag to it. According to Stub that tag ought to be after the categories, not ahead of them. It makes it easier to spot it instantly when stub-sorting, and having the stub tag, whether plain or categorised, after the ordinary categories makes the stub categories get listed last, which seems sensible. It would be helpful if you could add future stub tags in the conventional place. Thanks. PamD (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

L. L. Zamenhof
Hi, just wanted to say nice work on the Zamenhof article! MFNickster (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

-- Glad you like what I did. Thanks for letting me know. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nazi occultism
Hi. Again, I apologize that I have not found the time to reply to your comments at Talk:Nazi occultism. Of course, you are right, James Webb has not written about Nazi occultism but about "the functional significance of occultism in political irrationalism". However, Nazi occultism, as defined by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, are only the cryptohistoric, largely post-45 theories about Nazism. The material from James Webb would belong to religious aspects of Nazism, Ariosophy, Esotericism in Germany and Austria or probably some other article. Actually I think that I should move the sentence on him back to religious aspects of Nazism, but, as I already said, unfortunately I don't have that much time for Wikipedia anymore.Zara1709 (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by "of course, you are right"... If Webb has not written about Nazi occultism, why does Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke write that "Webb rescued the study of Nazi occultism"? If James Webb is not relevant to the topic of "Nazi occultism", as understood by Goodrick-Clarke, then why does Goodrick-Clarke even mention James Webb, in appendix with "Nazi occultism" in its title? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Mithras article
Hey man, why are you doing this? If you have useful contributions to make, that benefit everyone else, do make them. But just fighting with someone, on an article to which you have never contributed a single snippet of useful content ... that's not right. Imagine you invested months of time, checking sources and adding references, only for some guy who didn't know a thing to come along and try and edit it to tell some story of his own. How would you feel?

Please ... be a bit considerate, hey? Roger Pearse (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
I've asked the Mediation Cabal to help in resolving the disputes over Mithraic mysteries. You may wish to indicate your acceptance of mediation at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-12/Mithraic mysteries. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

More on Mithras article
I wonder if perhaps we can talk, now it is clear that you and CivilizedEducation are not, in fact, the same person?

Your own comments on the talk page seemed fine to me until almost the end. So I wonder if we might discuss what we want to do with this article?

Now I can see that you have formed the view that I am editing the article to push a POV, namely that Mithras post-dates Christ? In fact I don't really care about this. You may as well know my own personal view: it is that there might be some connection with the religious reforms of Augustus; and that since Plutarch and Servius suggest an origin in Cilicia before 68 BC, we must keep that in the article, even though the people Who Really Know -- the real Mithras scholars -- are generally against this. But my thought is that all opinions should be kept out of the article; it should just tell us what scholars think, with their names and quotations, and let the reader make his own mind up.

Would you like to discuss how to talk things forward? I wasn't opposed to more on Cumont, nor the idea of something linguistic on the name. I don't quite understand how we are at odds here. Roger Pearse (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

>> I wonder if perhaps we can talk, now it is clear that you and CivilizedEducation are not, in fact, the same person?

>Well, I am glad it is clear that we are not the same person.:)

Sorry about that!

>> Your own comments on the talk page seemed fine to me until almost the end. So I wonder if we might discuss what we want to do with this article?

>Perhaps we can have a person-to-person talk a little down the track. Right now, as a mediation process has already been started, I think that in fairness to Tom and CivilizedEducation and Lord Roem, the discussion should continue to happen on that neutral territory. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you there. But I think we should. Later, then. Roger Pearse (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kalidasa 777. I just found what seems to be Marvin Meyer describing his encounter with a mithraist and how he got himself initiated into the mysteries. p203-205. I wanted to know what you make of it. Besides, I have been tweaking with the article and added a few refs. I have also tried to take up some issues brought up by you. But I am not sure if I was able to do it in the way you suggested. I would like to get some comments from you there. Perhaps you would like to take a jab there? I think highly of your suggestions and would like them to be taken up. Cheers.- Civilized education  talk  03:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * By jove!!! Your reading of those pages is absolutely on the mark. I have to grateful to you for saving me from making some monumental mistakes. Thanks again.- Civilized education  talk  14:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi.- Civilized education  talk  05:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issues
Don't crow too quickly over apparent mistakes made by Roger; it does indeed appear that he took a few too many liberties with the work of a third party, but it's a common mistake and the details are so simple as not to merit much indignation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology DRN thread
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Journal of Cosmology". Thank you. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Roman religion
I may well be jumping to conclusions (as per usual) but this; Editor assistance/Requests looked oddly familiar somehow. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear Kalidasa 777: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you help?
Hi Kalidasa; I'm one of the editors who has been working (intermittently) on the WP:V page. I have some real concerns about what happened with the Czech IP editor 90.179.235.249 over there, who has not edited since 28 February, with their last contributions being to the SPI page. I've contacted everyone else (I think) involved in that unfortunate chain of events. 1; 2; 3; 4; to see if, between us, we can undo the harm / hurt which was caused to this person. I appreciate that you acted with good intentions when you filed the SPI case, but would it be at all possible for you to visit the editor's talk page and post something along the lines of "sorry, I was mistaken; apologies for any undue upset this caused"? I think some feedback on that page from everyone concerned might make this editor (innocent of virtually everything apart from removal of a tag which quite a number of others had also removed, without sanctions) re-consider their decision not to contribute any further. I really hope that you can help to undo some of the unintentional damage. Pesky (talk ) 10:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions
Hi there user:Kalidasa 777, I am just popping by if I may, to offer some congratulations in this, that since we first edited together at wt:v I have noticed some particularly thoughtful and insightful contributions to a number of pages in wikipedia talk which I have watched on my watchlist. And maybe we got off to a wrong start at wt:v if some of my edits concerned you, but that is by the by. Don't remember which pages they were in particular, just I thought they were good at the time I read them. One idea I think went into the workshop if I remember right, Thanks  NewbyG  ( talk) 16:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation straw poll
Hello Kalidasa 777, this is just to let you know that we are having a straw poll about how many drafts to include in the proposed RfC about Verifiability. The result of this straw poll will have a large effect on the direction the mediation takes, so if you could let us know your preferred number over at the mediation page, I would be very grateful. I am thinking of leaving the discussion open at least until 10am (UTC) on Thursday, March 22, and possibly longer if we require more time to reach a consensus. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation compromise drafts
Hello Kalidasa 777, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation step five
Hello Kalidasa 777, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - choosing final drafts
Hello Kalidasa. This is a note to let you know about a discussion I have just started at the verifiability mediation. It is aimed at making a final decision about the drafts we use in step 6, so that we can move on to drafting the RfC text in step 7. If possible, I would like everyone to comment over at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you! —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - choosing the RfC structure
Hello Kalidasa! You are cordially invited to a discussion at the verifiability mediation in which we will be deciding once and for all what combination of drafts and general questions we should have in the RfC. We would love to hear your input, so why not hop over and let us know your views when you next have the chance. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - to protect, or not to protect
Hello again Kalidasa. Do you think the upcoming verifiability RfC should use a system of protection and transclusion, as was found in the recent pending changes RfC, or should we just keep the entire RfC unprotected? There are good arguments both for and against, and at the moment we are at a stalemate. Could you give your opinion on the matter? The discussion thread is here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you about this again, but if you have a moment could you let me know which option you prefer here? We've had a few more comments since last time, but it's still too close to call, in my opinion, so I would really appreciate your input. I also created an example of how the RfC structure would look if we use transclusion, if you want to have a look. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability RfC - final call for alterations
Hello again Kalidasa. This is to let you know that I have made a final call for alterations to the verifiability RfC draft. Unless there is a very good reason for it not to, the RfC will be going live around 10.00 am (UTC) on Thursday June 28. Even if you would not like to see any further changes to the RfC draft, it would be a great help if you could check over the draft page and make sure everything is working properly. Thanks for your continued patience with this. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetical types of biochemistry
Just a note to say that I am impressed by your dedication to rescue the Hypothetical types of biochemistry article. By its very nature, it is very difficult to find reliable references and explain them in layman terms. It is starting to look good. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Early greetings for the new year
Thanks for your positive attitude about the Mithraic articles. As you may recall, they were the occasion of one of my more dispiriting Wikipedia experiences. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mariupol standoff, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages RTS, APC and Independent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hypothetical types of biochemistry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Shapiro. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Life on Titan page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=669978337 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F669978337%7CLife on Titan%5D%5D Ask for help])

WP:SECONDARY
A secondary source is a review article or monograph. Science publishes a few reviews, but mostly primary articles. As you can see, in general, primary citations, even to so-called prestige journals, are not the favored sources. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion
I fully understand that you want to support another contributor. However, starting a battleground thread on the ANI is a bad approach because you achieve an opposite result. This is clearly a battleground request because you use language like "persons she recently attacked", you complain about wording like "bad faith disruptive editing" rather than about the essence of the argument (no wonder because the disruptive editing indeed had happened), etc. My very best wishes (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response . After spending quite some time here, I totally do not care about language people are using. In fact, I strongly prefer people who openly express their mind. What really counts is action. For example, reverting an edit by someone may indeed be impolite (I am not telling that all reverts are such). However, the most incivil action in this environment is reporting another contributor on an administrative noticeboard, unless this is absolutely necessary. That is what you just did in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ANI is not the place to discuss content as you are trying to do. I responded on article talk page. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ??? ...But the edit of mine which you linked to is actually on the article talk page, and not on ANI. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Who cares? I am not sure why you continue commenting on ANI. Just wait a few days, and your thread will be self-archived. Next time please bring your complaints to WP:AE where they belong. But you do not have any case for WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You suggested talking at article talk page. Well, this is something I am not going to do. Why? First, these particular discussions are absolutely ridiculous (I am not telling that all discussions are ridiculous, some of them are very helpful). Second, these particular issues have been discussed a hundred times. I think this is simply a trolling. My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Re to . Things like that should not be brought on the ANI. First of all, this is mostly a content dispute between multiple contributors on two pages indicated in the title of your request, and I think these disputes have been already de facto resolved. Second, this is very difficult for uninvolved contributors to judge. Consider users A and B who revert edits by users X,Y,Z on several pages. It well could be that users A and B have explained reasons for their reverts on relevant article talk pages and make their edits to improve content, whereas X, Y, and Z are SPA who insert some poorly sourced POV nonsense. Or that could be a confilt of interest on the part of users X, Y, Z. Or whatever. One should really know the subjects and the contributors to judge what is really going on. My very best wishes (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC History of South America
Hi Kalidasa, you may wish to comment. Kind regards -- Marek . 69    talk  02:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)