User talk:Presearch/Archive 1

reply
A secondary source, like a newspaper article, should mention Easwaran's appearance in the film. You cite the newspaper article. I don't think that you can cite a film --- I've never encountered such a citation, in any case. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI
...[|FYI] prashanthns (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks! If any of the issues current on the talk page catch your interest it would be good if you gave your opinion. Whatever your views, it is good to have more editors involved. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Spiritual Heritage
Beautiful work on Spiritual Heritage of India. I'm sorry I have no time to work on articles at present. I couldn't resist, however, giving Vedanta Press its own page; alas, no time to do it properly. About Spiritual Heritage: intro says first published by Doubleday, but list of editions says first edition Allen & Unwin - so a minor discrepancy here. Really the article is nice, well referenced. Nicely done. Devadaru (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Vedanta Press
Hmmm, notability. I assumed that if a number of important books have been published by a press, that would be enough to establish notability. Plus, such authors as Christopher Isherwood and Aldous Huxley associated... A quick check on Google shows citations on books published by Vedanta Press, but I didn't see any articles directly dealing with the press. Is it then better to merge it with the Vedanta Society of Southern California? Or wait and see what other editors think? It would sort of clutter up the South Cal. article, though that too is a stub... Thanks for your encouragement. Devadaru (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * To Devadaru: I did a quick google book search on the phrase (in quotes) "Vedanta Press was founded", hoping by the 3rd and 4th words to get past the myriad books published BY the press. The third result down looked interesting: ISBN 9780253330987, a book published by Indiana University Press by Carl T. Jackson. The google search result shows that on page 53, it speaks of "a Vedanta press" (small p) in 1906, but a search within the book on "Vedanta Press" showed that the press itself is discussed on page 123, as part of the growth of the Vedanta Society of Southern California. Without having reread the notability page, I have a hunch/hope that maybe even something as simple as this might provide an external mention needed to meet the letter of the criterion; and then the fact that there have been notable books would help satisfy people that the letter and the spirit of the requirement are in accord with each other. Just to be on the safe side, it might be worthwhile also to try to find one or two more external mentions. Perhaps, other books that cite this book, and also mention Vedanta press, might be a way to start searching??? -- Health Researcher (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Another angle for searching is to do a google book search on mentions of Vedanta Press in the year that it was founded, 1947: The top citation to Publishers Weekly, though its only a snippet view, looks like it might be relevant. My viewer gives the following snippet from Vol 152, page 1573: "Vedanta Press, the recently established Hollywood firm (See PW, August 2), plans six titles for its first list of books about the Vedanta philosophy,..."  There's also something potentially relevant lower down on the page from the "Book Buyer's Guide" (p. 65, v. 50, pt. 2 - 1947). And perhaps other material can be found by other searches that might be thought up to target material outside of what VP publishes itself. Health Researcher (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David O. Moberg


The article David O. Moberg has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Claritas (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

David O. Moberg
Hi. I tagged David O. Moberg as an article lacking sources in mistake. The template has now been removed. Thanks for notifying me, and apologies. Claritas (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Radhakrishnan-TPU-cover.JPG
Hi, File:Radhakrishnan-TPU-cover.JPG looks quite reasonable. I would have said "front cover", (pretty rare to have a back cover) and if you have more info you can supply it: such as the measurements of the original cover, the illustrator or cover designer, and in your case what it is that is in the picture. I suspect you don't have to have the parenthesized disclaimer on the digital scanner. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your cool-headed response and encouragement. I got a little involved in the arguments on the Ramakrishna page some time back, where one editor very aggressively and rudely defended Kripal and others like him; finally I quit that one, leaving the work to some stronger-stomached editors. So when I found that even on a simple page like the Katha Upanishad there is an editor ready to ardently defend western academia, I started to get immediately "hot"; I guess I haven't digested the Kripal business yet. Anyhow, let me cool down, and when I have time I will see if the inspiration strikes to try to improve that article. The Katha is one of my favourite upanishads, so poetic and inspiring. Thanks again for the encouragement. Devadaru (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've looked at the RK page, and there is certainly a lot of heat over there, and I suspect I would have felt the same way as you do if I had become involved. There is one editor who has been active over there, G---, who makes many useful contributions to Wikipedia, but does have a tendency to become quite uncivil at times -- perhaps not even something he is aware of. In as much as you are still processing ("digesting") the experience, you might be interested in glancing at a webpage where many editors a couple of months ago discussed his lack of civility, and he apologized and pledged to do better: DISCUSSION APOLOGY. And he does seem to be at times almost obsessed with getting his view incorporated -- a trait that can often be helpful for maintaining motivation to be an academic, but something that can consume a great deal of energy (oneself and others') if it is misdirected. Health Researcher (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And he does seem to be at times almost obsessed with getting his view incorporated 
 * It is not my view. It is the view of every major scholar of Bengali religion. Ramakrishna molested boys. (see Ramakrishna Kathamrta Volume IV, Section XXIII, Chapter IX, “His earlier story...”) The mission of the Ramakrishna Mission is to suppress this fact. The Ramakrishna Mission has successfully kept this fact out of Wikipedia due to the pervasive mendacity of Ramakrishna devotees and the cowardice of Wikipedia administrators. The fact that the Ramakrishna article will not incorporate thee views is a permanent stain on the Wikipedia project.


 * You can continue to call me whatever names you want; it doesn't bother me too much. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * With regard to our fellow contributor to the Katha page, Mitsube, he's also very much an individual. On his user page he describes himself as both a Buddhist and an atheist (I suppose in the sense that "theism" is sometimes interpreted as referring to a personal god). He also has made a lot of good contributions to Wikipedia, and he tends with rare lapses to be civil. Although he places much stock in scholarship, he is capable of thinking outside the box re the Western academic mainstream -- see, for example, his current work at Reincarnation research, where he is defending the page from what I would call overzealous skeptics. However, my sense is that Mitsube can sometimes be overly wedded to an almost Promethean view of the Buddha in relation to Hinduism -- tending very often to emphasize the Buddha's unique contributions, while tending to downplay (and minimize) the legacy that the Buddha received from earlier Hindu culture. And M-- tends to use Western scholarship quite often to argue that position. But everyone has biases of various kinds, and I perceive him as a sincere contributor who can be worked with, who doesn't tend to get obsessed, and who can change and evolve in his opinions (not always precisely as I'd like or when I'd like, but that's life). So while he at times may be feel like an obstacle to an important improvement, he also sometimes serves as a tonic whose resistance catalyzes improvements that otherwise wouldn't happen, and he also sometimes many times makes independent positive contributions. Health Researcher (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess? You seem to have been observing me for quite some time. Mitsube (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've only been aware of your contributions since relatively recently (i.e., since recent interactions in last few weeks)... but often I try to figure out where people are coming from, so as to better understand where to find common ground, and where I'll have to work hardest to bridge differences. So sometimes I look at previous editing patterns (hey, what did they just do to our 'edit count' tool??). I suspect other editors often do similar things to try to figure out where people are coming from. And of course such impressions evolve over time and get corrected. At any rate, my impressions of you are just from our few recent interactions (plus noticing the Admin noticeboard re reincarnation). Take good care, and keep up your good work. Regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also @Mistube: By the way, as we continue to get to know each other better, perhaps I will discover that the one or two not fully positive things I said above (e.g., 'overly wedded') are off-base, and have always been off base... it would certainly of course be a delight to be embarrassed in that way, and for all I know with my imperfect knowledge, I should already feel embarrassed (:-)) ! Take good care -- Health Researcher (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Verbal
FYI. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Meditation
Hi, Since you are touching up meditation do you want to fix the lead, or make suggestions for it. Do you understand this field? I have just started to begin to understand it, and the article seems confused - but confused seems to be the state of much of the literature on on it. That article is a collage of items that do not relate well to each other. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello History2007, thanks for your message. I've got to sign off for awhile now, but I will think about your question and see if I can come up with any ideas. Meanwhile, while the meditation/evolution idea is not mainstream, neither am I aware that it has received much criticism (the last I checked). Thus I would merely characterize it as new - and published by a very respectable journal by a very respectable University Press. I did notice, however, that the page for Baldwin effect tended to overplay the criticism of the Baldwin effect as a generic process, and almost give the impression that it is Lamarckian, which it most definitely is not. I've done some work on that page to make it better balanced, so if it's a topic that interests you, you might want to check out the updated page. By the way, thanks for the copy-edits. I was content with my original version, but a little extra modesty won't hurt, and probably makes it better. Thanks, and best regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think now that you typed on that talk page, it is better to centralize the talk there. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Book cover
We still have to assume that copyright applies for anything we use on Wikipedia unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. The statement "Please contact the (name of organization that prints it) for additional copies of this publication, which may be used and reprinted without special permission." indicates some rights are released, ie the right to reproduce, but does not release the right to make derivatives, or to perform in public, or perhaps not to load onto a web site. However given this free sounding license you may be able to persuade them to grant a CC-BY-SA-3.0 license if you talk to them. In the USA it may be possible to put something in the public domain, but this is not possible in many other countries, and the best that can be done is CC0 or all rights released. (even so some rights cannot be released). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't try to interpret what they mean. But you can repeat that right to make copies.  In modern times, copyright does not have to be claimed for it to exist, so its absence does not mean anything.  The permission means that some of the fair use criteria can be ignored. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Prayer of Saint Francis‎
Regarding your recent edits to Talk:Prayer of Saint Francis‎, please add your comments or questions at the end of existing threads or to a new section at the end of the talk page (and don't forget to sign them). Modifying others' comments in talk pages is considered bad form and is likely to be reverted. Thank you. mwalimu59 (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bandura, Russian edition
Here is information and response from helpdesk/language:
 * Russian edition of Bandura's Social Foundations of Thought and Action - seeking Pub Info


 * Hello, One of the key books by eminent psychologist Albert Bandura - the most highly cited living psychologist in the world - is his Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, published in 1986 in English (ISBN 9780138156145, Google Book). Bandura's CV (HERE) says that it has been published in Russian. But internet searches via Google book and Worldcat have not turned up the publication info (i.e., year, Russian title & publisher, ISBN, number of pages). Is there any Russian speaker who could somehow obtain this info? (perhaps by asking on Russian Wikipedia, for those who may have access to Russian libraries that are not online, or...???)? FYI, I am preparing an article about the book; also, I've already found the Spanish and Chinese translations mentioned on his CV, so the CV seems reliable, and it says a Russian edition exists. Many thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Helped by my basic Russian, I can tell you that the title is [probably] Альберт, Бандура: "Социальные основы мышления и поведения". However, google search gives a bunch of practically identical Russian hits, all of them being the same biography. The term "Рефераты" means "student's papers", so that partially explains such repetitiveness. However, I also cannot locate publisher and ISBN. The alternative title I found is "Социальные основы мысли и действия", but still no actual hits about the Russian edition. No such user (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ...and, I can easily find the bibliographic information about the other two translations (Theory of Social Learning -- http://www.zipsites.ru/psy/psylib/info.php?p=2762) and Adolescent Aggression - http://www.libex.ru/detail/book284583.html). But no sign whatsoever about the Social Foundations -- I'm inclined to believe that there is an error in the CV. No such user (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(permalink HERE, over-inclusive diff HERE) Health Researcher (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Karl Rahner - Man as a being of transcendence.
Karl Rahner presents man as a being of transcendence in his book Foundations of Christian Faith. This book, as you might already know is a very influential one, referred to as a text-book in Theological studies. That is why I decided to write down that sentence in continuity of Rudolf Otto. It is thanks to Rahner that the paradigm of study of religion as a non-reducible, original realm has been established. What do you think ? Thanks Alan347 (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Alan, you should probably read our pages on "no original research" (WP:NOR) including sections on what constitutes a synthetic statement (WP:SYNTH). If you found a reliable source (WP:RS) that claimed that Rahner was the cause of the new approach in psychology (note the "psychology of religion" page is discussing a branch of psychology), then it could potentially be quoted. Personally, I find the claim implausible because it gives all causal credit to theology (and to one thinker within theology), whereas in the real world, there may be many contributing factors -- internal evolution of psychology as a field, broader influences from popular culture, influences from contact with non-Christian religions, etc. I suspect that if you talked to historians they would find the notion of crediting a scientific paradigm change to a single thinker in a nonscientific field as a remarkable stretch. Health Researcher (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Swami Krishnananda (verifiable references)
Dear Health Researcher,

Thank you for your very thoughtful letter. I appreciate your encouragement and your advice. Your points are well received. Though we did spearhead the Swami Krishnananda page, including writing all of its content and doing all associated research thus far, we by no means wish to claim ownership of the article. We are fully aware of the open and collaborative nature of Wikipedia, and are more than willing to work with other editors in this capacity to improve the page. We are quite knowledgeable about Krishnananda and his work, and, as you suggested, it may be helpful if we could maintain a leadership position on the project until it fully complies with Wikipedia policy. Either way, we intend to comply with that policy.

One of the missions of the institution that Swami Krishnananda ran for more than 40 years—the Divine Life Society—is the free dissemination of spiritual, religious, and philosophical literature. In accordance with that mission, Krishnananda did not promote nor profit monetarily from his writing or teaching. Therefore, Krishnananda’s work is not known much to the lay public. It has been challenging for us, then, to find impartial viewpoints about him outside of a relatively small, albeit highly respected, academic community, some of the makeup of which includes Dr. Stephen Phillips, Dr. Clooney, Dr. Grayling, and Dr. Pintchman—the professors cited as references in the article. According to one of our researchers, these professors have used Krishnananda's work in their lecturing, and do in fact assert that he was a significant 20th century theologian and philosopher. This assertion is testified further by Krishnananda’s extensive body of work, which speaks for itself, and by consensus among serious theologians and philosophers.

Essentially the article consists of three phases: biographical, academic, and contextual. The sources for the work in the first two phases have been cited amply with references to biographical information on Krishnananda published at Swami-Krishnananda.org, by Krishnananda’s own scholarly work, and by a few sources relating to the defining of key terms and concepts. Over half of the citations in the article correspond to these sources. The other phase of the article is “contextual,”—that is, related to the perspective with which the reader will view Swami Krishnananda. This phase of the article consists of the 13 assertions connected with the contested university professor references. Without these assertions, by virtue that Krishnananda is not well-known outside of religious and academic circles, the lay reader will have difficulty in fully appreciating the scope and scale of Krishnananda’s life and work, and therefore may not take the time to read the article in its entirety. For this reason, it is important to us that these assertions—which I can assure you are accurate—remain in the article.

With the exception of a few over-generalized correlations of statements in regards to Krishnananda’s work and Swami-Krishnananda.org, which I will soon correct, the only references in the article that remain unacceptable as per Wikipedia policy are the aforementioned which correspond to Dr. Stephen Phillips, Dr. Clooney, Dr. Grayling, and Dr. Pintchman. I will work diligently to get in touch with these individuals in an effort to obtain copies of their published material—course materials, syllabi, and work in academic journals—in which they have referred favorably to Swami Krishnananda and his work. I could provide quotations of theirs to such effect immediately, but as I understand it, this would be deemed by Wikipedia as “original research.” These professors are very busy people, so it may take some time for me to obtain copies of, or find online locations for, their published comments as regards Swami Krishnananda and his work. If I am unable to locate this material in a timely fashion, perhaps I can collaborate with another, more experienced editor to find sources elsewhere which can attest to the validity of the 13 assertions made in the “contextual” phase of the article.

Unfortunately, religion is under attack today. The reasons for this are rooted in ignorance. However, the study of a man like Swami Krishnananda, who had an unblemished record, who lived a life of admirable self-discipline, who selflessly served millions of people, and who left behind an ocean of knowledge, all in the name of religion, can replace this ignorance with an understanding of what the ancient science is really about.

We thank you again for your kindly advice.

Be well,

Advedom (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Eastern
Thanks, I will do that. History2007 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Second vote on suggested change to lede regarding position of The Catholic Church on meditation
There is a second vote about the sentence in the lede of Meditation, this time to remove the sentence completely, taking place here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Meditation#Second_vote_on_suggested_change_to_lede_regarding_position_of_The_Catholic_Church_on_meditation

Your vote would be appreciated! makeswell (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment of The Principal Upanishads (book) and Spiritual Heritage of India (book)
I concur with the previous reviewer that these articles are essentially start class. Though they are well sourced, they are "developing" in nature, not "substantial" (the next class requirement). -- Redtigerxyz Talk 15:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at those pages (which I assume was in response to THIS, and pertained to the quality scale HERE). Question: While it's still fresh in your mind, can you give me some hints about the sorts of "substantial" content that you think needs to be added? Do you think the synposes should be built up? Or something else? Do you think that the "Reviews" sections are adequate (my guess), or do you think something needs to be added to them too? Many thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I leave comments on respective talks about improvement. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read Talk:The_Principal_Upanishads_(book). -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Sockpuppet investigations/Joehazelton &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A Better Way: Copy/Paste
Hey, Next time please copy and paste in order to avoid reverting material that you do not intend to revert.

I've fixed it. I left the sentence we're talking about on the Talk page where it was, and copy/paste'ed the rest.

Thanks man. makeswell (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I responded on Talk:Meditation


 * Yes, touché. At the time I did the reversion, the page was changing a whole lot, and was something of a moving target, and I was running out of time (and I felt it important to weigh in before things advanced too much further). Later, it became evident that the changes had in fact ended by the time I did my edit, so the page was no longer a moving target, and I could have done more specific changes, w/o being blocked by more edit conflicts. Perhaps I should have come back and tried to sort out the pieces. But that didn't seem optimal because at that point I wasn't sure how much you would regard those changes as requiring each other in order to be intelligible. So I left the burden on you, which I didn't feel was optimal, either.


 * On looking closer, however, at the changes you put back in, I'm have concerns with some of the other changes -- they are not "equivalent" concerns to my initial concern re "non-discursive thought", but they are concerns. If I respond, I will try to respond 1-by-1 with greater clarity. Best -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mkay. I added a reference to the part about brain size.

I think the point you're making is valid, you might find this video I just uploaded a minute ago to be useful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG4xaA3y948 Within the fist couples seconds of the video Mark Williams begins talking about, "discursive, ruminating thought," and its place in depression.

Ruminating thought is indeed central to attention based practices, such as mindfulness-based programs.

There are also forms of meditation that don't necessarily equate to less rumination. These include visualization practices, analytical meditation, metta, tonglen, and others. Though rumination may be reduced through these practices, this reduction is not professed to be central to them, as it is with anapanasati and other mindfulness-based practices.

makeswell (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

3rd person perspective
Hey, I've requested a third-person perspective on Talk:Meditation. I figured I'd put this info here to maintain a neutral tone. makeswell (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

new post on Talk:Meditation
I posted anew on Talk:Meditation, Talk:Meditation.

makeswell (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi History2007, nice to have you maintaining a (limited) presence on the Meditation page, and thanks for your support of my edit. I find it mildly baffling that there are 395 "watchers" of the meditation page, but very few editors who are active, beyond occasional reversion of vandalism. For example, until your remark in passing, no-one else had voiced support for my concern about not having too many video references, in a thread that has now been archived (|here), with contributions from me alone! Surely, out of those 395 "watchers", some must have had opinions.... -- Health Researcher (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my absence, but I was busy with other things, ranging from Supercomputing in China to Mariology-related topics. I will try to pay more attention there now. But as a scientist you may wish to explore two separate questions: Q1: Does meditation create apathy in some individuals who watch pages so that 393 out of 395 say nothing? Q2: Does excessive meditation create uncontrollable mood swings such as those we may have seen from some people who burst out with happy exclamations and uncontrolled verbosity (I do not see that as random) on talk pages, and sometimes exhibits serious serotonergic imbalances? May make a good research grant topic...... Anyway, that is how science can progress via Wikipedia, by posing new questions. But jokes aside, I will try to pay more attention, and my apologies for being busy elsewhere. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the pluralism page, I was going to ask Mr Wales for a 15% salary increase before I looked at it. But he jumped the gun and asked for a 15% donation increase instead.... sigh... History2007 (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

makeswell (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a new post on Talk:Meditation. makeswell (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Your Participation
Participating in noticeboards and other community forums is an essential part of making Wikipedia work and grow. Thank you for taking the time to add to my thread on the Notability noticeboard. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Keithbob has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Research... research...
I am telling you buddy, you have to write a NSF proposal on how excessive meditation results in verbosity... We have too much experimental data on it.... The guys in San Diego may do it if you do not... and they do not need the money ... Maybe you can get some subjects from Wikipedia... just be sure to send me 10% of the contract amount... History2007 (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, every few weeks (or more often) the Meditation talk page receives the benefit of somebody's long-winded wisdom. I suspect it happens partly because meditation is close to many people's hearts, sometimes even motivating newbies to embark on WP editing. But besides making beginner-type WP mistakes, they also don't realize the limits of their own encyclopedia-relevant knowledge of meditation. Often they may have in-depth knowledge within their own tradition, but such knowledge (when valid, as it often is) is oriented primarily towards practical personal transformation, rather than scholarly adequacy for a larger topic. Without realizing it, people thus see through a glass doubly darkly, as it were, about something very close to their heart. Perhaps a recipe for a lot of behavior with a low signal-to-noise ratio? (plus, some folks may have additional quirks...) Health Researcher (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think they are aware that they are being verbose. There is just too much correlation here. There was some experiment many years ago on verbosity of people with cognitive complications, and when challenged they would just get verbose ... I wonder... History2007 (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect you're correct, that they don't recognize that they are being verbose. Quite often, people tend to regard their system of meditation/spiritual practice the same way that parents regard their own kids. When showing you home movies of their kids, parents may fail to recognize that you're less captivated than them by these cutest-and-most-fascinating-ever kids. (I mean, don't get me wrong, all kids are cute, but.... :-) ). On a different note, that sounds like a fascinating study on cognitive complications, I'd be interested in citation details if you ever happen to remember them. Best -- Health Researcher (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It was interesting, but I do not remember the citation. These were people who had some type of "physical damage" e.g. accidents to the brain and it caused them to have problems in the logic of locations and places, etc. so they would not be able to function and reason about distances, etc. The test was to casually talk to them and discuss to a point until they would realize that they have serious logical problems in their statements - at that point they would get extremely verbose to cover up the problem. History2007 (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I could not find that ref, it was 10 years ago I think that I read it, but I did a search and there is much new material. In any case, there seems to be good new research on Right hemisphere brain damage and prosodic problems. So I just built that page, if you want to add to it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fascinating stuff about right hemisphere problems! Though I doubt it's the explanation for the verbosity we've witnessed here, there is evidence for impacts of meditation on brain activation (see recent review). Also, as happens rather often, I'm once again impressed by your diligence in adding so much cool stuff to Wikipedia (I know that your wages were recently doubled, but I don't think that's a complete explanation... I suspect there may also be some selfless love of humanity going on...). Wikipedia really does help us cyber-meet plenty of cool and amazing folks, such as yourself, along with all the other types that that it takes to make Wikipedia be Wikipedia. Of course, verbosity may not be limited to brain-damaged people. Remember the old joke: the definition of a professor is someone who talks in other people's sleep? All the very best, your friend, Health Researcher (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, it all started because I had read that report many years ago about the "accident damage" report. Now, how do we know that specific chemical activities (even drinking) do not cause temporary impairments that emulate RHD? If drinking does it, then can meditative effects simulate the euphoric effects of alcohol? I have a theory that meditation does create temporary changes in brain functioning at the chemical level. Hence that may explain it, but one needs many fMRIs to prove it, but it is hard to talk when doing an fMRI. And as you correctly said, it is not a two way implication, in that some verbose people may have other problems, but still wonder about the one way implication. Now, if we could talk Apple to build an fMR device into the iphone.... History2007 (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

there has been a new post on Talk:Meditation
[|a new post on Talk: Meditation]

Hi I am new to Wiki. Just put up my first post on a talk page as I noticed you had deleted my edit. I read your reasons and I have asked a few questions. Look forward to hearing from you as I am still very much trying to find my way around wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxford73 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I forgot to sign sorry but would appreciate some feedback Oxford73 (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Hi - I responded to you and asked a question. thanks for coming back to me Oxford73 (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Acem Meditation
Why not remove Acem Meditation if remove Brahma Kumaris? I am not understanding. Who heard of Acem Meditation? How many numbers and how many countries? Far less than BrahmaKumari religion. Has Acem Meditation association with United Nations? In 1986 BrahmaKumari has donated 1,231,975,713 minutes of peace to United Nations, 2,344 years of peaceful meditation! President of India comes many times. Brahma Kumaris are not flat earth people very famous in India. Please explain. (Januarythe18th (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC))


 * Hello, January, I want to acknowledge your question above about Acem (why Acem if not BrahmaKumari?) as a fair and reasonable question, one that raises important issues. I am inclined to agree with you that the status quo is probably not correct (though I do not want to encourage you to reinsert BrahmaKumari). This is a busy week for me and I will try to address the issues you have raised more fully sometime next week if not earlier. Best -- Health Researcher (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My friend, we have a stumbling block. How you dismiss Brahma Kumaris awarded 7 UN Peace Messenger Awards for its co-ordination of 'Million Minutes of Peace" promoting mediation? Which other religion has achieved? No other religion focuses entirely on meditation. We have no rituals, no gurus, no signing, only meditation. Unique also for open eyed mediation and checking in dreams, means 24 hours a day goal. Who is more famous? The Brahma Kumaris or the Oveyssi-Shahmaghsoudi Sufi order and form of tamarkoz? WP-UNDUE isn't it? Why singing on meditation page? Discrimination power is needed. (Januarythe18th (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)).


 * Actually I support Health Researcher's edit also, so it is not a 1-1 issue. History2007 (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A quick glance at the link to the Sufi order mentioned above suggests that it should probably be deleted from the page too. January, do you want to implement that cleanup? Health Researcher (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You show me how best. Same with Jew mediation talking to grass. That is not being mediation! How many Breslover Hasidim are there anyway? How many heard of them? I tell you noone in India! Noone in England. There are 10 lakh Brahma Kumaris. Each meditate 2 hours a day starting 4 am. No other householder religion manage such a feat. Brahma Kumari religion is most famous in India for their mediation only.

Brahma Kumari is open eyed meditation so possible to perform at all time during day unlike Christian souls going drinking, singing, fighting with Islam.

You same removed twice but that is lie in writing. I changed and remove what you dont like. Brahma Kumari religion just as important as any other religion. For mediation power, one good yogi soul worth 10,000 worldly soul. Numbers not mean anything. Same with age. If old Copper Age bhakti religions like Islam and Christ worked, there is no need for religion by now therefore new knowledge is needed. (Januarythe18th (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)).


 * @January, I see that you are doing enormous changes to the Meditation page. I don't have time to look at them, but I strongly suspect that other editors will not want to accept your wholesale reworking of the page. You will almost certainly be reverted. I strongly encourage you to slow down and not make so many changes -- certainly not without building up much more trust.
 * @January: You talk above is full of "Soapboxing" which is inappropriate for Wikipedia (WP:SOAP). If you don't change very quickly, and perhaps apologize, you will quickly confirm a bad reputation for yourself. Health Researcher (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @ALL: The ONLY change I urged January to do was to delete the reference to the Oveyssi-Shahmaghsoudi Sufi order, which was red-linked. Health Researcher (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Social Foundations of Thought and Action
Hello! Your submission of Social Foundations of Thought and Action at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pgallert (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I responded. I think all issues are now dealt with. If not, please let me know. Health Researcher (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Times are a' changing
Something strange here.... no debates, no disturbances, so quiet... You are writing nice DYK articles without disturbance... what is happening? By the way, I asked myself how affective forecasting figures in that Bandura type framework. Does it? And then I thought if meditation can redirect affective forecasts. Does it? Interesting probably, although probably a "tangential thought". History2007 (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, amazingly quiet. Let's enjoy it while it lasts. Regarding affective forecasting, I don't think Bandura uses that term; and a search in PsycINFO suggests that the affective forecasting literature doesn't cite him too often, either. But conceptually, there are definite points of intersection. Motivation is certainly an important construct in his system, and surely affective expectations of the consequences of various choices/behaviors are likely to influence motivation. For example, Bandura acknowledges the role of "vicarious" motivators. If as the result of particular behaviors I see (or even hear persuasive accounts about) someone else experiencing happiness, bliss, or the peace that passeth all understanding, then that can serve as a "vicarious" motivator for me to engage in those same behaviors. It would probably be a good student term paper topic for someone to go through Bandura's book and see how it might be said to connect. Health Researcher (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Take a look. Look for the orange heighlights, not bad for an early release piece of software. If you look on the wikiwatch wikipage I just started a project for reliability. Comments will be appreciated. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Not quite sure I understand how their algorithms are supposed to work. Still, whatever the details, if it even works moderately well, providing such "views" of WP pages seems like something that could be very useful for people who want to channel their energy to raise the reliability / academic quality of pages. Sometimes that initial step of asking oneself "where do I start?" can be hard, and consume energy.


 * With regard to the meditation page, the orange highlights pertain to 8 arms of Patanjali Yoga. To me those sentences all look correct. But they do look like they give too much detail to material that isn't central to the page, i.e., several of those 8 practices would never really be translated as "meditation". So in that sense, those highlights do seem useful, even if they were generated for the wrong reason, so to speak (reliability vs exposition). -- Health Researcher (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The "where do I start" point you made is very interesting. I will use that within the Wiki reliability project task items. I am thinking of designing a visual chart of reliability across topics, and your point will be useful there. And Wiki-Watch is just a start, in 5 years there will be many more versions. Do you remember Microsoft Word when there was no mouse support yet? Those were the days... Wiki-Watch is at that stage now. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: File reduction
Category:Non-free Wikipedia file size reduction request When an image is tagged, it's reduced to 400px X 400px by DashBot: "There is no need to resize images by hand. User:DASHBot goes through daily and resizes those that have (height*width)>(400*400)." We hope (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK Review
Hello, I see that you and Daniel Case were discussing Pitkin County Courthouse, so is it now ready to go? OCNative (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dhammapada (Easwaran translation)
The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the messages. I just saw them. My duties don't presently afford me the time for Wikipedia; every once in a while I have a quick peek at the old watchlist! Best wishes to you. Devadaru (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

New name, small world
Hi, I saw your new name and happened to recognize it when I went to add a DK. You had one on May 29 too, so I ok-ed it - small world. Anyway, what do you think of the stress/meditation item? History2007 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for doing that review - It's always a minor relief when that hurdle is cleared. I noticed you'd done it, and noticed also that you've submitted a DYK for a new article about "Imitation of Christ" (as an idea, not just a book). What a terrific page to create! That's such a central process for Christianity (and something similar is recognized in many other traditions), and you've pulled together a lot of great material. I think this is a wonderful example of how Wikipedia can be of assistance to both scholars and ordinary people. Bravo!


 * With regard to the stress/meditation item, I very much appreciated your understated response ("there are a few more..." with a link to 168,000 hits for stress+meditation; I wondered why I hadn't thought of offering such an understated response!). With regard to stress as a disqualifier for meditation... well, see my comment on the page; I suppose a very stressed out or nervous/anxious person, if a sitting form of meditation seems to challenging, might possibly also try to offer many short prayers, such as Ave Marias, or the type of "monologistic prayers" recommended by John Cassian (hey, Wikipedia's behind the times, nothing in it about "monologistic prayer"!). Presearch (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

courtesy
You deleted a post of mine which I had first mentioned on the meditation talk page. It would have been courteous if you had come on to the talk page to explain the reasons for the revert either before or afterwards.Oxford73 (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the change-log contained an explanation: I viewed your post as "promotional material". When the change-log has an explanation, then I don't always feel it's necessary to take more of my own and everyone else's time and energy on the talk page. If you'd like me to explain in greater detail why I viewed it as promotional, then you could start a post or section on the talk page, and I'll respond there. Presearch (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gita Dhyanam
Calmer  Waters  00:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC) 12:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for God Makes the Rivers to Flow
Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK
Hi, I have an article on supercomputing on the DYK suggestion list that has been sitting there waiting to be reviewed for a while. Can I trouble you to check it to see if it is ok, and if so marking it, else I will fix it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, everything checks out but I wondered if the hook could be made more interesting. I made a couple of suggestions but you should make sure they are accurate/etc. Or, better, formulate a new hook that is a tad catchier for nonexperts. Also, I thought the image caption should be expanded a bit, as said on DYK page. I will check it off as OK (ready to go) since neither of these seem fatal, but I'd encourage a bit of polishing in this regard if feasible. All the best -- Presearch (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

@Presearch(=self): DIFF (last 2 edits)


 * I liked your ALT1 better than the original hook in fact. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone else helped on that also and it is all done. Thanks again. History2007 (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, your suggestion about adding more to the caption for the img was a good idea and I started to add those type of images to the supercomputer page itself, now that I have started to clean it up. I think it will be easier to explain it with images there too. In case, you want to know what these thi8ngs look like inside, and. They are just thousands and thousands of personal computer-like blades stacked up in a cabinet. That's all. Cheers History2007 (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fetzer Institute


A tag has been placed on Fetzer Institute, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Eduemoni↑talk↓  19:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for John Palocaren
Hi Presearch, I've reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/John Palocaren and I have some issues. Could you please see my review and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for John Palocaren
Thanks for this new article Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mar Dinkha IV
I actually agree with you about Mar (which is just a title. But family names are not actually good practice. I think just Dinkha IV (without Mar, but adding the Fourth as IV) would be the best. werldwayd (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there is no concensus on names of Eastern Patriarchs. But I have double checked Syriac Patriarchs and they do carry family names. Syriac Catholic Patriarchs: Ignatius Joseph III Yonan and Ignatius Peter VIII Abdalahad. Maronite Patriarchs, also Syriac, use full family names Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir and Mar Bechara Boutros al-Rahi. Also Assyrian Patriarchs Shimun XXII Paulos and Shimun XXI Benyamin. I was depending on my knowledge of Armenian Patraiarchs without first name like Aram I and Karekin II, but I stand corrected. Use family names. Now I am momore convinced. As for IV it is related to Dinkha not family, so Dinkha IV or Dinkha IV Khananya is most acceptable. werldwayd (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi Presearch, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Swarm   X 20:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
 Swarm   X 05:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Split brain
Hi, How are you doing? Has any one looked into meditation by split brain people? I thought of it as I did Left brain interpreter. So I wondered.... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi History, nice to hear from you. I'm doing well, but I've been very busy IRL for several months -- only an occasional chance to sneak away and create a substantial new page on Wikipedia. Regarding split brain stuff, I've never heard of meditation being taught to such people (nor did a search on keywords in PsycINFO reveal anything), although it's possible that there's something out there, one never knows. However, I have heard a somewhat contrary idea expressed: The idea that one of the dangers to excessive/unguided meditation is that it could tear a person in two, so to speak. This is something I've heard said by experienced meditation teachers, and I've always interpreted it (perhaps without a solid basis - just my way of remembering it) as meaning, at least in part, that the two halves of the brain could become discoordinated with each other. This is not something that would happen to someone who meditates for, say, a half an hour once or twice a day. But if someone is meditating long hours (e.g., 8 hours), and does not have solid guidance, such bad things have apparently been known to happen (though I've never witnessed it myself). Though I heard this through teachers from Eastern traditions, I believe such possible dangers have also been sounded in Western traditions, e.g., Hesychasm. I think Theophan the Recluse, for example, may have something to say on this issue. But whether they describe the phenomena in sufficient detail to make it sound like split brain problems, I don't know.


 * How are you doing these days? What are you up to? Best -- Presearch (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I was torn in two because I overdid on meditation... kidding. But you do have an interesting point, over meditation may increase the "distance from reality", and the sad facts of the world. But then, that may be the whole idea of becoming a monk..... I was wondering if meditation could have helped split brain people, but I guess there are too few of those to have done much research.... Now I am trying to formulate my 2012 New Year resolutions, to be sure I will not be able to keep them... Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI
I was asked for advice on meditation. I guess I should answer that one should not overdo it, else it may split the person.... But anyway, FYI. History2007 (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Faith and Health: Psychological Perspectives (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links to Depression, Fellowship and Norman Anderson


 * Self-Efficacy (book) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links to Springer and Blackwell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays
Thanks, and I wish you a great year ahead. I will look at the articles within a day or so. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I thought the general's comment "surely no more abstruse than nuclear physics" was funny, and of course without basis. Once in uniform, people seem to assume a certain level of power just because the subordinates shine their shoes all day. I guess there is some research there somewhere on the "deluding power of the uniform". History2007 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Self-Efficacy (book)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Faith and Health: Psychological Perspectives
Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Photo
Hi, actually the DYK photo selection is quite random - and in teh end is not crucial to the encyclopedia. Usually several people suggest photos, and someone will make a snap decision as to which will get used, given that there are always more photos than can be used. But in the end life goes on. We can "sometimes" make positive contributions via Wikipedia, but should not get overworked about it, given the nature of the environment. Today I was told not to get too academic about adding in line references.... It did not bother me, I just chuckled and moved on. There are other articles to fix. Anyway, Best wishes for 2012. History2007 (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Teresa de Jesús (film) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
 * Thanks. I hope the bot archives this, since it's months old. -- Presearch (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Original Goodness (book)
The DYK project (nominate) 14:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Contemplative Practices in Action
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Seling v. Young
I've added an alt to Template:Did you know nominations/Seling v. Young. Seeing as the nominator has been out for a bit, could you take a look at the suggestion and let me know if it is accessible enough? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Porter Sargent
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, FYI if you want to take a look at it, now that GA user did not. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas, real life is keeping me very busy these weeks. I don't really have time to put on much of a "thinking cap" for WP these days. A little bit of spontaneous reactivity to spam / vandalism / obviously flawed edits to articles on my watchlist is about all I can handle these days... sorry... (hopefully better times will return). Good luck -- Presearch (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of How to Start a Revolution
Hello! Your submission of How to Start a Revolution at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Aridd (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for How to Start a Revolution
Carabinieri (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Love Never Faileth
Thanks from Wikipedia and the DYK team Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited The Politics of Nonviolent Action, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strike (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) 15:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Beginning of the end
Just a note to say a pre-goodbye. I have now reached semi-liberation from Wikipedia and while I used to do 1,000 edits a month may at best do 1,000 a year and then even less - just watching pages mostly. As my user page says I do not think it will ever get the science right with current policies.

But the great siphon-off has now started. So whatever has value will be used elsewhere. Now they have just siphoned off the nodes, in time they will grab whatever is worth grabbing. And the boys in Redmond will do the same sooner or later. Try this: they got the node name and summary fro Wikipedia, the picture elsewhere and will just buiid their own over time. My prediction: a few people will build Wolfram alpha type versions of Wikipedia and what there is in Wikipedia now will be just the lowest level of the food chain. That is certain to happen now, given the force of the universe principle.

So thank you for your help and all that you taught me along the way. History2007 (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, bro! There are no goodbyes! I'm sure there will be future opportunities to cross paths. Thank you for your kind words, and thank you for all you have taught me (such as to have a good sense of humor, and also sometimes to draw the line... a task that is compatible with agape, if not required by it... not that I've learned to dwell in agape...)!


 * Frankly, 1000 edits a month sounds like a lot of eggs to put in one basket. Even 1000 a year is not scrimping (I think I've been managing that lately, but so what?). But there's a big wide universe out there. I suspect you have a higher calling. Didn't Meister Eckhart (isn't he mostly OK for Catholics these days?) say that between Man and God are 40 coats (or "tough skins")? Each coat has its own time, perhaps, to be worn, and then to be outgrown...


 * Do you have any particular future plans? Maybe with your knowledge of Christian art you should create a museum of religious art... or make movies about religious art? The world needs more good movies... (which these days are a bit like angels visits, few and far between...)


 * Take good care, my friend. I'm sure we'll be in touch. -- Presearch (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Right... I need to get in the movie business... That was actually a line from a great literary masterpiece.. just kidding. But seriously, I hardly watch movies any more... As for future plans, as they say.... But I think I have done enough here. And yes, there is a wide world out there, but you know what the man said .... I think he was right. But I think you that path better than myself. History2007 (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for From Dictatorship to Democracy
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo needed of Gene Sharp

 * Hello Pi. I noticed that you take a lot of photos for Wikipedia in the Boston area. We really need a copyright-free photo of this individual, Gene Sharp. He has a whole series of articles about his life and works, and he's been nominated for the Nobel Prize a couple of times, and he lives in the Boston Area. But we don't have any photos of him, and there's been a "photo needed" template on the article (talk page) for some time now. Any chance you'd be in a position to help? Or else could suggest it to some other Wikipedia photographer in the Boston area who could? Many thanks for your consideration, and good luck with your college studies and other projects -- Presearch (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Unfortunately, I don't think I'm able to help with your search for an image of Gene Sharp. I'm not in the UMass system, so I'm not in a position to meet him. (The one bio image I have been able to upload, of Brian Skerry, came when he came to my school to talk.)

I'd advise trying the Free Image Search Tool once in a while - it searches flickr and several other sites that provide images under Creative Commons licenses. (Currently there are no worthwhile results, but I've had good luck with flickr in the past.) You could also email UMass Dartmouth and ask if they've got an image of him they'd be willing to release under some sort of free license. The library might be a good choice - student librarians are the sort who might even be willing to take a picture themselves. Other possiblities might be the PoliSci department he's affiliated with, or the student newspaper. Best of luck! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts about getting a photo. Two bits of additional info:
 * 1) There do seem to be some flickr images, though they are not free:, , , . They all say "all rights reserved". Are Flickr uploaders likely to respond to requests to release such rights?  (actually, since I maintain anonymity as a Wikipedian, I'd perhaps require additional set up of an email account, probably a cumbersome task, to be able to make such a request via email..)  --Presearch (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Since Sharp is emeritus at U Mass Dartmouth, I suspect he's seldom around campus. But his organization, the Albert Einstein Institution contact, where he continues to work, seems to be run out of his house in East Boston, which is served by the MBTA blue line. That is why it occurred to me to ask you in the first place. I have no idea how close his house is to the an MBTA stop, though.... but possibly that would make it a tiny bit easier for a Bostonian to get an original photo of him.... --Presearch (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I suppose someone could also just directly request the Albert Einstein Institution (or, as you say, U Mass Dartmouth) via email, though as I mentioned earlier, I'm not currently set up to do that. --Presearch (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Many flickr users don't know much if anything about CC licenses, and are willing to switch images to them if asked. I've only tried once, but I got an immediate yes, so I'm optimistic. The HRHF image is excellent, and as an organization they might be more willing than an individual user.


 * Setting up a single-purpose flickr account is not terribly difficult - shouldn't take more than 15 minutes. I've still got the text from my request; I'll copy it here if you'd like to use it. Alternately, choose an image and I'd be willing to make the request for you.


 * For a single-purpose email account for contacting UMass or the AEF, I'd recommend gmail. Sets up quickly without much fuss. I've actually got at least 4 gmail accounts for different purposes, and it's worked well for me.


 * My worry with getting a picture myself is that I'd worry I was invading his privacy. I'm generally a rail photographer; I'm not sure how I'd feel about seeking out a person in their (non-public) life to grab a picture. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment
In regard to your question about Resistance, Politics, and the American Struggle for Independence, 1765-1775:

I tend to do these assessments somewhat quickly for two reasons: there are many thousands of backlog assessments that need to be done, and, now that I've done about 10000 of them, I have a good general idea of ratings. In the end, I do my best.

One of the issues I would point out with the article in question is the strange use of for text that is not a direct quote of any person or of verbatim text. The first quote in origins looks like a summary of the book's content rather than a direct quote. The second quote in origins looks like the first half of it should be a non-quote text summary done by you, then perhaps complimented by the quote about their surprise. I would say the same about the second quote in "topics covered": it seems like a hybrid of a quote; half summary that would be better done as text and half quote. in "Reviews and influence" the bottom quote is split between a block quote and the sentence above it where the quote begins. Overall, it seems to me that the article is a bot short considering the largeness of the topic covered, but you would probably be better off having this article looked at by someone more familiar with American history. Of course, I could be wrong, but these things stand out to me.

For a more comprehensive and expert opinion, I would advise you to either find someone from WikiProject United States History to look at this when you feel it's b-class, or to put the article up for Peer review, especially if you intend to take the article to GA or higher. I Never  Cry  23:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Politics of Nonviolent Action
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Resistance, Politics, and the American Struggle for Independence, 1765-1775
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gandhi as a Political Strategist
Hello! Your submission of Gandhi as a Political Strategist at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Approved it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gandhi as a Political Strategist
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Seeing with the Eyes of Love
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carol Lee Flinders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dominican University (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) 10:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Resubmit DYK nomination
Hello. I have some doubts about how to resubmit a DYK nom. Could you explain this to me, please? Thanks.--LlamaAl (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Making of a Teacher @ DYK
Hi Presearch! Great job on the "Making of a Teacher" article. It's is totally appropriate for DYK and it's almost ready to go. I proposed some small changes to the hook that I think improve the grammar. Maybe you could take a look and tell me what you think? Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review and for your kind and thoughtful words. As I've mentioned on the review template, I like and prefer the Alt1 hook you proposed! Thanks! -- Presearch (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I have any further role in reviewing, since I think the article was good beforehand (I really liked the unique layout), but I do want to say that I'm impressed with your willingness to restructure it while being calm and kind to your reviewers. It's almost as though you were influenced by your subject... groupuscule (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. Well, I do appreciate the chance to write articles about uplifting topics. I do think that can sometimes that can help one remember to "do the right thing." But I find myself being more impressed by people who are able to maintain their cool while editing articles with a high degree of contentiousness going on. In that case, often (depending on the article), it can sometimes a challenge to assume good faith (WP:AGF). This article was easy by comparison, and indeed, I'm not sure quite what I was thinking when I put in so many direct quotes (though I agree with you, it was very interesting to read them all strung together). BTW, it appears you make good contributions on a lot of interesting articles -- hope you keep up the good work! Regards -- Presearch (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Carol Lee Flinders
Hello! Your submission of Carol Lee Flinders at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Secretlondon (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied. Secretlondon (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Carol Lee Flinders
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Making of a Teacher
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Conquest of Mind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telugu (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) 12:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Marquis Flowers ALT
Hi there. Just realized that I plopped the same hook down twice for Marquis Flowers instead of a better one. #troutingmyself. Buggie111 (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Two (1964 film)
Hi. Would you be able to take a look at the DYK nomination of Two (1964 film) here? I have made some changes per your suggestions. Also, I have suggested another hook. -  Vivvt  &bull;&#32; ( Talk ) 14:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at the DYK. - <span style="font:italic bold 12px/30px Georgia, serif"> Vivvt  &bull;&#32; ( Talk ) 20:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thanks for your good work on that and other articles. Kind regards -- Presearch (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Conquest of Mind
The DYK project (nominate) 00:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Marcelle Auclair
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

New message at Ekabhishek's
...talk page! --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jatindra Mohan Sengupta
The DYK project (nominate) 02:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Star Theatre, Kolkata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vidyasagar (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) 11:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Vitakkasanthana Sutta
KTC (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Films on Ramakrishna
I can hardly add 6-7 movies (all Bengali) on Ramakrishna. I don't have the Bengali book now which I used as reference. Anyway, I'll try to collect it again. Also, I have thought to an RKM branch to send us a list of films. I emailed them thrice (not Wikipedia related question, but personal query, got reply twice). See the email draft I have prepared below:

Now two questions 1) What do you think? 2) Should we add Swami Vivekananda too (different article (Films about Swami Vivekananda)? --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Tito -- well, as you can see, I've done quite a bit of bit of work on the page via internet searches. I now count about 15 or more candidates. I found these through searching on three movie databases (see the talk page: CITWF, Gomolo, and IMDB) as well as YouTube. I've developed a sort of semi-systematic way of taking notes on each candidate that we identify, as you can see from the "Notes" column in the table. Ultimately, I think we should aim to identify the actor in each one of these films (except for the documentary) who played Ramakrishna. That will be of interest, and it also be a way to check that the movie really does depict Ramakrishna.
 * With regard to your question about Vivekananda, perhaps I have mostly answered it already (implicitly) by the fact that I've listed so many Vivekananda films. Note also that I've listed films about Sarada Devi and Girish Gosh - it seems to me that any film where there is an actor who depicts Ramakrishna should be of interest. I think a film about one of these people (e.g., Vivekananda beginning only in 1893, if such a film exists) should not be listed on this page. Perhaps a similar page for Vivekananda would be of interest, so that information could be kept somewhere as notes, perhaps. But I would see this page as only for films that actually depict Ramakrishna (who I've abbreviated SRK=Sri Ramakrishna in my notes).
 * With regard to your idea of an email to the Mission, that strikes me as a good idea. But let's think about what we'd want to ask, given all this material that I've managed to find. Some of the needed expansion can happen through a Bengali speaker (e.g., looking at films on Youtube). Other parts perhaps we can find in an Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema (do you have such a thing? I think I can track one down where I am, though I am not in India and don't speak any Indian languages, there seems to be one in a local library).
 * I'm about out of time today so let me try to send you more thoughts in perhaps 12 hours. But feel free to respond before then. Thanks for your interest and participation in this project. In fact, before too long, my time available will get somewhat scarcer, but hopefully we've got some momentum and structure going... and I will still have some time. Thanks again. --Presearch (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. a) We can expect the organization has a better list than ours. b) they have a reputation to help in research works, don't know if they will do for ours c) not sure if all films (on Vivekananda) portrayed Ramakrsihna as a main character. d) you can email them too, I'll tell you the email addresses.
 * 2. a) Ramakrishna has more influence on Bengali theatre than films, see this article (blacklisted URL, add http etc) indianetzone.com/60/religious_influence_on_bengali_theatre.htm b) in last months I created this article on a Bengali drama Biley, where Ramakrishna was a main character. I had a wish to nominate it for DYK, but finally gave up the idea because two main sources of the article are in Bengali. --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Tito, thanks for the link to that interesting article (too bad it's blacklisted on WP), and congrats on the good article on Biley. I think that sort of work can help lay foundations for an eventual page on plays on Ramakrishna. In the meanwhile, as you can see, I managed to continue working on the FaRK page today, although I can't tomorrow. So let me respond to your earlier queries and suggest ways you can help as you have available time:
 * First, let me say I'm fairly reluctant to start emailing myself, since I want to maintain anonymity and prefer to keep things simpler (plus, my overall time for WP is limited).
 * I think we have now managed to compile a fairly good list of films for which SRK (Sri Ramakrishna) is a primary and secondary focus. When we do email the RKM it seems to me that one of our questions should be to send us a list if they have it in electronic form, or if not please compare with the grid in our article and tell is what we're missing, as well as if any on our list are not in fact about SRK.
 * In about 2 or 3 days I will be able to get some books from a US library about Indian and Bengali theater. Once I have them I will be able to determine how much information they can give for completing the article.
 * In the meantime, if you have any time, please read through the page as I have left it. You will see that there are quite a number of questions, usually in braces { }, that are directed to you or to "Bengali speakers". Please go through and provide clarificatsions wherever you can. Perhaps one way to do this is to insert text saying "ANSWER: XXXX -Tito"; then, after I've read it, I will either delete it or comment it out so that it is invisible (e.g., with ).
 * One of the tasks is to figure out which actor played SRK in each film where it is now blank in the grid. Sometimes that might be determined by looking at the Bengali titles on YouTube (where a Youtube version exists), and seeing who is credited as SRK. Then perhaps check the Gomolo or other database to see how the actor's name is transliterated, and inserting that in the grid.
 * I am particularly concerned to make sure that SRK actually does appear in the Vidyasagar films. If not, they should be deleted. This could perhaps be checked in the method suggested above. (Of all the biopics of other persons in the grid, Vidyasagar's is the only one where it would be possible to tell his bio without mentioning SRK.)
 * With regard to your suggested letter text to RKM, I am happy to copy-edit anything you write (I'm a native American English speaker). Or if you think that's unimportant in this context, feel free to ignore this offer. Here below is an email that I've copy-edited, and also expanded to include a second question with regard to sources which discuss the films (such sources, if we can find them, will help us establish notability for the topic, and would perhaps eventually allow more WP articles about individual films).


 * Of course, you know the RKM better than I do, and have more experience communicating with it, so if you think that email is too long, or too demanding for a first email, then feel free to cut it or otherwise modify it. Perhaps we'll know more in a few days when I have those books. Be well. Kind regards --Presearch (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have sent them the email. --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tito, have you heard back anything in response to your email to the RK Mission? I have obtained those books from the library. They had some interesting information about actor Gurudas Banerjee, who frequently played SRK, and I have added it to the page. However, the books hardly give us any new information on any of the films themselves. It looks like we will really need help from the Mission or from other sources, such as Bengali books - or in some cases from Bengali speakers looking at credits on YouTube. So... what, if anything, have you heard hack from the Mission? Thanks -- Presearch (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Light: Swami Vivekananda
Add this film too. This is an international standard film.. released today.. dubbed in 18/7 languages. If you want you can nominate it for DYK too (but, don't put that 18 languages in hook. 2 newspaper state the film was planned to be dubbed in 18 languages, but the site says the film released in 7 languages. So, I am confused there! I am also confused on the spelling of lead actor's surname. I am following The Times of India's spelling, but in official site the spelling is a bit different.

Since it is a big project/budget/banner film, I think we can add few lines on this film in your planned FaRK article! What do you think? Needless to say, since the film is just released today, reviews etc are not available! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Great! Good work on the article! Very interesting! I've added it to the FaRK table. I also nominated it for DYK, HERE. It occurred to me that you could add an old uncopyrighted photo of Vivekananda somewhere in the article, and then use that article in the hook. I considered doing that, but then I realized that would make me an article coauthor so I couldn't nominate it without doing a review. But you could now generate an ALT hook that has an image of him, if you think that's worthwhile (remember a hook image must also be present in the article). --Presearch (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a first class movie. The last international standard movie made on RK/SV was Iyer's "Swami Vivekananda". I have tried to contact the official Facebook page (later I found they have an email address too, I'll email them in a couple of days). We are using a non free poster. I'll try to get permission to use a mooie poster and 30 seconds music sample in the article! --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This article has some information on the character of Ramakrishna! --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Very interesting! I will add it to the FaRK page before too long. Thanks! -- Presearch (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick reply
"Jini Ram Tini Krishno Ek-i Dehe Ramkrishna"- "One who was Rama, one who was Krishna, now he is (born as) Ramakrishna". This is a famous quote, you should get a scholarly translation of it! --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a famous quote where he hinted he was an avatar. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Presearch (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have got this one line reply from Ramakrishna Mission headoffice:

Do you suggest to email them now? --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Yes, that sounds good to me. I wonder if we made the email too complicated? At any rate, I suppose we should simplify the emails a bit. If they can tell us sources of reviews or send us lists of movies, that would be good. Below is another simpler possible draft for what you could send. --Presearch (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll send the email in next 2-3 days! --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Re; Question

 * Don't mention anything just link the nomination. If someone notices it then you can explain! But, most probably no one will do that!
 * 18 Feb! --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

On the Bengali/Hindi movie Vidyasagar
I meant movie was multilingual as it was a usual thing those days. By the way, how do we differentiate between multilingual and dubbing? Do you think people used to shoot it twice for a bilingual movie? --GDibyendu (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, sometimes they actually used to shoot movies 2 or 3 times. See footnotes (#15 at present) in Gurudas Banerjee and see the new section at Cinema of India. The authors of the Encyclopedia said they had trouble differentiating these things from available documentation (presumably looking at the movies themselves would make it very clear). -- Presearch (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gurudas Banerjee
Hello! Your submission of Gurudas Banerjee at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Correct Knowledge «৳alk»  15:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, I just realised I had inadvertently 'broken' BlueMoonset's talk page - came back to sort it and found you beat me to it. Apologies for my incompetence and the inconvenience caused. SagaciousPhil  -  Chat  07:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Gurudas Banerjee
Gatoclass 23:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Light: Swami Vivekananda
Hello! Your submission of The Light: Swami Vivekananda at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chamal T •C 04:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Light: Swami Vivekananda
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
For the 25 DYK award you gave me 1,5 months ago :) I've been kinda busy lately, but I really appreciated the award. There is no real system to award these DYK medals, so you'd have to wait and see if someone notices that you have 25 DYK's without having gotten the award. I was also kinda worried if someone would give me the 25 DYK before I reached 50 DYK, so I'm very thankful you did it :D Mentoz86 (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ramana Maharshi
(Copied from Template talk:Modern Dharmic writers]]))

What do you see as the take-home for Wikipedia purposes of the Ramana Maharshi thesis? A quick glance suggests that the author may have valid points about how some responded to RM, but something makes me wonder whether he shifts the emphasis a bit farther than would be warranted toward reducing the spiritual to an epiphenomenon of other things. Though maybe that's just the way it appears at first glance, based on the author's need to beat his own drum and show himself as having done novel scholarship. So what would you suggest is its relevance here? --Presearch (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not relevant to the template, but to the image of Ramana Maharshi. I thought you might be interested, given your interest in multiple religious belonging. you're probably also familiair with researchers like john McRae and Robert Sharf, who have pointed out how much of our images of Buddhism are shaped by romantic notions. it seems to me that this is not restricted to Buddhism, and I was quite surprised (and happy) to find this thesis. Alan Edwards confirms some impressions I had too, about his primary belonging to Shaivism, and not to Advaita Vedanta. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks for the clarification, yes, now it makes sense. Indeed, it is an interesting thesis. In scanning his thesis I didn't read the whole thing but read parts. It was interesting to hear how RM ran up the flag at independence. Certainly portraying him as totally beyond anything political seemed a stretch, so its nice to have that corrective. I suppose I'll have to take another look at the thesis when I have time to see what case the author makes for the idea that he really is more of a shaivite than a jnana yogi, which is how I'd always thought of him (I'm not sure precisely how that overlaps or differs from the idea that he's a Vedantin). Having read some of RM's collected sayings, I think the author will have a very uphill case to shift the balance to make RM appear MORE as bhakti (in the form of Tamil Shaivism) than as jnani. A much easier battle, which I imagine the author has made, would be to show that some aspects of bhakta were displayed in RM, so that RM is not a totally "pure" jnani, whatever that might mean. Of course, even Adi Shankara composed hymns to Shiva, so I'm not sure exactly what demonstration of RM as reflecting a few aspects of bhakti would demonstrate, except that some previous characterizations were overly extreme. At any rate, it sounds like I'll have to look at the thesis and delve a bit further into it, when I get more time. Thanks for calling this to my attention! -- Presearch (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Rajiv Malhotra
So...what do you think? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

book articles
I am somewhat concerned by the degree of duplication & expansion in the book articles you've been writing: there's a special problem involving books that are compilations of articles -- perhaps it might be better if there either a boxed table of contents or a description of the highlights. I think the net event of doing it twice is a little promotional. I suggest also that the usual course with book reviews is to put the details of who wrote them & quotations from them in the reference, not the text of the article. e.g. the book was reviewed in the NYT, the CSM , etc. Otherwise, the repeated praises make the overall tone too promotional. Please take another look at them together. (The Making of a Teacher, Handbook of Religion and Health , Contemplative Practices in Action ,  Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness/Spirituality (book),  Faith and Health: Psychological Perspectives (this one seems to be stretching a little to show the notability , btw--and I'm concerned the ref 7+ are about the problems discussed, not the book)  . When the authors are individually notable, perhaps their ideas are best presented in the articles on them.  For  Being Different, which is not a compilation, perhaps the article gives an impression of promoting the ideas in the book, rather than just describing them.  I'm also a little concerned with the number and proportion of the quotations in Love Never Faileth, What is in common in all these is the effect it gives at least me of trying to expand the material.

In general, my  opinion is that the best way to deal with these sort of problems is the greatest possible try for compactness of prose. This lets all the key things get said, while still not appearing to represent over-coverage.

For a less experienced editor, I would  simply have already made some cuts myself in at least some of these articles, but I think it would be discourteous for me do so in this situation so without discussion. I recognize I am questioning a consistent practice you have done over a number of articles, but I don't want to be combative about it. Nor am I sure where would be the best place for discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello DGG, thanks for your note and your collaborative approach. Now is not a terribly good time for me in terms of having time available for Wikipedia, but let me try to respond to various concerns that are embedded in your lengthy message. I'm not sure I'll manage to get to everything, but hopefully I'll get to the major points.


 * With regard to Being Different, that may indeed have a variety of flaws. I never regarded it as finished and hoped to come back to it. The text explaining the book content had been on the page for Rajiv Malhotra, and I simply copied it to the book page. I suppose there should be some sort of accreditation to "previous Wikipedia editors" for that, though I didn't figure out how to do that. Perhaps my main original contribution was creating links to several discussions of the book that demonstrate notability. I got a quote from one of them but haven't yet tried to summarize perspectives of others. So if the description of the book itself is of the wrong tone or has other flaws, that could well be the case. I actually have a copy of the book so if I ever get time I would be able to rework that material. But at this point I doubt I have the major time that might take. I'm not sure what shortgap measure to recommend. Maybe someone else out there has a copy available? If you're a librarian, do you have a copy available?


 * With regard to saying the name of the person who wrote the review, I'm not sure what your point of comparison is. My opinion is that more information allows one to form a better judgement, and that in some cases, knowing the author is equally or more important than knowing the journal. I don't recall anything in book page guidelines that said not to mention the authors name. And if the author is notable enough to have their own WP article, the reader can find out even more about the source of the opinion. I don't see any problem with the practice. If you do, maybe our judgements just differ on this issue. In fact, I'd be inclined to think that book description pages elsewhere on Wikipedia might be improved if they gave the names of the reviewers, except perhaps in cases where the reviewer is so closely identified with a particular journal that the info would be almost redundant (Comment: As a librarian, perhaps you often deal with situations of this sort, i.e., a review from Library Journal or from Booklist or Publishers Weekly; the overwhelming majority of the reviews that I recall having cited, however, are not from such trade-focused journals. I suppose there might be exceptions in particular articles I have written, but in general I believe that such trade journal reviews have been rare).
 * it's not the book page, but footnote style and the purpose of footnotes, which is to give detail, thus avoiding repetition. This is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedia articles are written concisely. It would be possible , after all , to put everything in the text, but the information is easier to find in the footnote and the text becomes easier to read. Yes, we should give the reviewer, in the footnote,  though I admit that I am often guilt of skipping it to save time when adding reviews quickly to show notability.  DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * With regard to tables of contents versus description, perhaps we could discuss particular cases.I'm inclined to believe that seeing a table of contents gives a helpful sense of how the book is conceived and executed. I see it as a complement to the textual material that describes the book - i.e., a reader may read a bit in the text, and then wonder how that fits into the big picture, and be able to look at the TOC.
 * TOCs have a purpose. In books. Some books are complicated enough that it's the clearest way to present the information. But the basic rule of concise writing remains, not to duplicate in text what is in a table. Ishall use my own judgment about which to remove, if you'd rather not part with any of it yourself. The rule is you do not own the article WP:OWN If you revert me, which is your right, we can discuss it again, and if we still disagree, we ask for other opinions.  DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * With regard to "promotional": I try to describe book contents in a way that is maximally informative with regard to material that is likely to be of most interest to a broad section of readers. And I try to summarize main thrust of reviews, both positive and negative. Controversial books (e.g., Malhotra's Being Different) tend to have a lot of opinions both positive and negative (and that article isn't completed). Books that are good but uncontroversial tend to have a lot of positive opinions with maybe some concerns and criticisms of aspects. Books that are bad and uncontroversial tend to have drawn negative reviews and tend over time to be forgotten about, and I suspect that few Wikipedia editors are highly motivated to write articles about such books. I don't recall writing any. Anyway, in sum: With the exception of the Being Different article, which I suspect could indeed be unbalanced, I've tried to convey a balanced and informative representation of the book's content, the content of the reviews, and the sources of the reviews. I imagine I could have slipped up in particular instances, in which case those should be fixed. I'm just about out of time now, but within a day or two will try to review the rest of the book articles you mentioned, to see if I have anything more to say.
 * Regards -- Presearch (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is in fact the basic problem. I think that writing at such great length on a book propounding a thesis is promoting the thesis more than giving information. (I recognize that these are not entirely separate) We will probably not agree on how much is desirable. If we cannot reach a compromise amount, the community will decide. Myself, my inclination throughout Wikipedia is to remove all possible promotionalism. The best way of showing what I mean is to edit, and I will do that.  DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Presearch. Regarding copying within Wikipedia:
 * Copying within Wikipedia
 * " If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary."
 * Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that takes care of the legalities. But in terms of writing style, there is rarely need to do that. The preferred way to deal with an author and the author's books is WP:Summary style; if the books are sufficiently notable and enough particular material is available for separate articles, then the  author's page has a brief description of each book in  line or two, and the details go in the separate article. For less notable books, a paragraph or so goes in the article for the author. When an author describes basically the same ideas in several books, it is often clearer either to write one article even if more would be permissible, or  to move the basic ideas to the author page, referring to it in the article on the books. The main reasons for copying is to expand a brief paragraph on one page into the introduction to another, or when several pages need an explanation of the same thing, and it's impractical to write a page for that thing for them all to link to. WP is hypertext, and hypertext makes it possible to avoid most duplication. People are used to it--they know to click on the link to find the information.  DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that takes care of the legalities. But in terms of writing style, there is rarely need to do that. The preferred way to deal with an author and the author's books is WP:Summary style; if the books are sufficiently notable and enough particular material is available for separate articles, then the  author's page has a brief description of each book in  line or two, and the details go in the separate article. For less notable books, a paragraph or so goes in the article for the author. When an author describes basically the same ideas in several books, it is often clearer either to write one article even if more would be permissible, or  to move the basic ideas to the author page, referring to it in the article on the books. The main reasons for copying is to expand a brief paragraph on one page into the introduction to another, or when several pages need an explanation of the same thing, and it's impractical to write a page for that thing for them all to link to. WP is hypertext, and hypertext makes it possible to avoid most duplication. People are used to it--they know to click on the link to find the information.  DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading tip
Hi Presearch. this book may be of interest to you. Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joan Bondurant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of the Pacific (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) 11:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

re:Krisnha Prem vs Ronald Nixon
Hi. You're welcome regarding the categories at Krishna Prem. Regarding categories at redirects, I know that it is very common with categories at redirects. What Krishna Prem sounds like doesn't matter, my motivation was that there was never a World War I I fighter pilot named Krishna Prem, while there was a pilot named Ronald Nixon. The policies re categories for redirects are at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects (quote: "Another example is when a single article covers things known by multiple names, such as a person who is known in multiple fields of endeavour under different names, a merged article about three different newspapers, or a sketch comedy television show whose name exists on Wikipedia as a redirect to the comedy troupe that created it.)". Manxruler (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Fascinating! Thanks for helping me learn a new facet of Wikipedia. I do wonder about one thing, though. How would you suggest that readers of the Krishna Prem page could be alerted to the fact that a category for British WWI pilots even exists? I guess one way to do it is indirectly, by linking to the article that presumably exists for British WWI pilots (a task that I expect to do later today). Then a reader who was interested in that topic could go to that article, where they presumably learn that such a category exists, if they scroll down to categories. But is there any (graceful and proportional) way to have the existence of such a category by reflected (i.e., advertised) directly on the Krishna Prem page? (not a huge issue, I'm just wondering, and you seem to know about these issues...). Thanks! -- Presearch (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's a fine idea to link to Royal Flying Corps, if that was were Nixon (later Krishna Prem) served. That should do it for the WWI pilot link. I can't really think of another way to do it, I'm afraid. Do you know in which branch he served? Manxruler (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I linked Royal Flying Corps - that name is indeed mentioned in the Brooks reference already cited in the sentence that mentioned his pilot service. Problem solved! Thanks -- Presearch (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Goody. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Krishna Prem
Alex ShihTalk 03:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Please consider joining
Tito ☸ Dutta 10:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)