User talk:Scyrme/Archive June 2021

Drastic actions on Yoga articles
Hi, welcome, and thank you for your intention to improve WikiProject Yoga.

However, you seem to be a very new editor who is taking drastic action on a long-established project. The choice of articles and the layout of the templates have been the work of many editors over more than a decade; everything can be improved, but it is inherently unlikely that it is all incorrect, leaving aside the number of Good Articles, the many citations of scholarly sources, and the efforts of so many people.

Therefore, if you intend to make major changes such as reworking a template or redirecting an article, it would be appreciated if you would discuss the proposal first on the talk page, and preferably notify also the WikiProject talk page, so other editors can contribute their opinions. Looking forward to working with you, all the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Minor points:


 * 1) please don't use "200px" or other fixed widths for images; use "upright", "upright=0.6" etc to get suitably-sized (not enlarged, please) images that don't run down into the references list.
 * 2) neither this WikiProject nor Wikipedia now use "Image:" in place of "File:".
 * 3) please don't compress the text by removing blank lines, these are useful when editing and have no cost for readers.
 * 4) policy reserves boldface for the article title and major redirect targets in the lead section; it is not to be used in other situations, such as image captions for emphasis.


 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * 1. I wasn't aware that "upright" scaled images. I'll use it in future.
 * That's all that it does.


 * 2. I assumed using the more specific one would be preferred. I'll use file from now on.
 * Thx.


 * 3. You mean after headings? I thought the standard was a blank link before, not after?
 * Throughout the project.
 * I don't recall removing them elsewhere, but alright. Scyrme (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Btw, did you notice my suggestion on the talk page of the Yoga navbar? You didn't reply to the ping. Scyrme (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't see it, maybe I got several pings at once. Navbar talk pages are little-used on this or most other projects and hardly anybody watches them. Suggest you raise it on the WikiProject's talk page (i.e. cut the discussion and paste it over there) and put a note to the discussion on Talk:Yoga. This change certainly must not take place without consensus as it affects the entire project, both classical yoga and the recent varieties. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Dhyana in Buddhism
While I appreciate your edits, please take care not to interpret primary sources as you did here. Your list of five mental factors seemed to be intended to list the five hinrances and their counteracts; yet, the list was incorrect. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mahāsamādhi. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Scyrme, just a note - this is the second time I've felt obliged to mention that you are making extremely large and drastic edits to multiple Hinduism articles, always without discussion, and to my eye often certainly incorrectly. The connection between the meditative states of Samadhi and the state of death, Mahasamadhi, is discernible but it is frankly not the same as saying that they are the same topic, and many editors would certainly oppose such a move. Could you please stop this progress; I am sorry to have to elevate it to the level of formal warnings, but you do not seem to be moving towards a proper process of analysis, study, discussion, and reflection, but are just charging ahead as if nothing mattered. The formal warning notes that a range of administrative actions are available; I do hope these will not be necessary. Please discuss drastic changes on the talk page, at the very least, and if the topic is little discussed, also post at WP:Hinduism and similar places. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Mahasamadhi reads: "According to this belief, a realized and enlightened (Jivanmukta), yogi (male) or yogini (female) who has attained the state of nirvikalpa samādhi, can consciously exit from their body and attain enlightenment, often while in a deep, conscious meditative state." ~ In context, the "deep, conscious meditative state" here is samādhi, which is explicitly mentioned earlier in the same sentence (even ignoring the fact "mahāsamādhi" itself literally means "great samādhi"). Not only does it explicitly refer to samādhi, it refers to a particular form of it which is delineated with a subsection under which the information was moved. Further, the destination article provides essential context. Finally, the merged article was a stub and has been for over a decade; it clearly does not need a separate article. Scyrme (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If you still feel this needs to be discussed, alright, revert the edit and I'll tag it as I did for Bandha (yoga) but I suspect, just like that article, that no-one will voice opposition. I do not feel my edits are as "drastic" as you say they are. However, I will in future tag articles before performing mergers assuming they've not already been tagged, so these issues don't arise again. As for disputes, I've only had any with you afaik. If you're referring to the Joshua's entry on this talk page, that was simply my mistake, and it was remedied without any dispute. Scyrme (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for discussing, I was concerned that you had simply ignored my previous message on the same issue. I know that MS has S in its name and is formally related, but all the same, it is a sharply distinct (sub)topic and I'm surprised you thought to merge it; your other merge-and-redirects to Samadhi seem more reasonable. As for the nature of the changes, yes, merging and redirecting is pretty much by definition a drastic change; unless things are obvious WP:FORKs then a discussion is advisable. As for the amount of overview and discussion on yoga/tantra and suchlike, I'm afraid that active knowledgeable editors watching these areas are now few, so you can't expect huge response, and even quite doubtful actions could readily be missed altogether. All that is to say, that discussion to obtain consensus is wise, and it may take some getting. On minor matters, being bold is indeed probably the only sensible course of action. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No, I hadn't ignored it, I just responded by tagging Bandha (yoga) and starting the discussion on the article's "talk" page. I expected you would check it and reply, but you didn't. I assumed that you didn't because you felt your stated objection on my "talk" page was enough to indicate opposition. Now I'm not sure if still object. Do you? Or may I now restore the redirects?


 * Re: the lack of editors watching, that's precisely why I felt it would be best to just implement a merge rather than adding to the backlog of tags that go on being ignored for months (or in some cases years). Merging concentrates attention so there's more traffic and (presumably) more constructive edits, which improves the material and may even bring renewed interest which helps fix the problem of no-one watching for dubious actions. Sections can always be split off into separate articles later if the material grows too extensive, and if it never does then the merge was for the best.


 * Re: Mahāsamādhi specifically, as I've said I think the context is important to understanding the concept as anything more than 'just dying' and felt that the content of the article itself established enough of a connection to justify the merge. I've started a relevant section on the relevant article "talk" page so if you still oppose a merge I think it would be best for you to explain your view there. Scyrme (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't mean to bother you again, but I would appreciate a reply. Scyrme (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, but I do basically oppose unconsidered mergers, except for obvious cases like synonyms. Chiswick Chap (talk)#

Botanical identity of Soma and Cannabis Sativa
Hey! I had a few questions regarding your edit made to my changes in the Cannabis Sativa section. I have added it to the talk page there. Please check this out. Thanks! --ShellPandey (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)