User talk:Anam Gumnam
- 1 inserts
- 2 Mahayana Sutas
- 3 mahayana
- 4 Mahājñāna
- 5 WP:ANI notice
- 6 Old WP:ANI request
- 7 Talk:Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen
- 8 Your edit to Buddhism
- 9 Mitsube's issue...
- 10 Vesak
- 11 3rr warning
- 12 Hello
- 13 Mahayana
- 14 Long Quote in Nirvana Article
- 15 Refreshingly Quiet Past Year for Buddhist Editing!
- 16 Thanks for fixing that hilarious spelling error at Septuagint
Concerning Mahayana Sutras, Anam, what do you think is the solution then, do you have an idea to make the information that you labeled as 'unbalanced', more balanced in your eyes? Rephrasing? Shorter formulation? Different presentation? Add another viewpoint? Go ahead and try please. But it shouldn't be deleted, because that would be very unbalanced and dictatorial, I think. Greetings, Sacca 04:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I encourage you to get involved in this, else I will have to see by myself if the insertion of the labels is justified or not. Engaging in discussion is good so I can see what your concern is, and if this is a valid concern, or not. Greetings, Sacca 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Anam, welcome to Wikipedia.
I look forward to your reply and interaction at Mahayana Sutras. Concerning your idea that I use too few sources, I am very sorry you got that impression based on some of Peter's remarks. Maybe I can recommend you to have a look at the various articles I have been involved in and if you are honest you will come away with a different impression of the variety of sources I have used.
I have now added some additional info on the historicity of the Mahayana Sutras, I am sorry if you are unhappy about this. But please understand that Wikipedia's aim is to provide information in an unbiased way, and sometimes people will not be happy about certain information, especially if they have some personal interest in the covered subject. But the way to judge the information is not through whether it makes you happy or not, but through verifiability and the adaptation of a neutral point of view (NPOV).
P.S. Professor A.K. Warder is a professor of Sanskrit and he has spent several years in India exploring manuscript libraries in every state in connection with his work on Kavya, a literary style created by the Mahayanist Asvaghosa. He has also published on the subject of Indian Philosophy of all religious schools (not just Buddhism, also Jainism and Hinduism). These seem very good credentials to me for scholarly opinion on Mahayana.
Greetings, Sacca 10:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I continued working from the previous version, I have explained my reasons for this on the talkpage. Now I have also added more material from R. Rays' book, I hope that that agrees better with you? Greetings, Sacca 06:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate your input on the Mahayana-related articles. However, since it has come up on a talk page, I feel obliged to mention that, on Wikipedia, it is considered preferable to add text with citations, piece by piece, rather than adding a larger block of text at once and then adding citations later. I realise this can sometimes be a frustrating way to write, but it is does have benefits. Noramlly, the other editors will give you a fair amount of leeway with guidelines such as this; but, occasionally, you might meet a particular editor who insists on the rules being followed more closely.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 00:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I seem to have assumed you were a "sir" partly because I guessed your name to be Indian, and then I assumed that most north Indian names ending in consonants are cognates or reflexes of Sanskrit words ending in अः, i.e. masculine nouns. That's a quite circuitous bit of logic, so I appear entirely susceptible to having perhaps jumped to the wrong conclusion.
- Another approach you might take to editing would be to compose your text as a whole first without citations, then add the citations, but keeping it on your computer until finish, i.e. not uploading it to Wikipedia until you have added the references.
- I'd like to contact you by e-mail if that's agreeable to you. You could either send me an e-mail via [link] or else specify an e-mail address in your Wikipedia account so that I can e-mail you.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 04:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion about your editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Also, for your information, wikistalking can be considered harassment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Old WP:ANI request
Would you like to explain this request any further? Did you want to follow up? Is your complaint about this edit where User:Mitsube removed a source by Dr. Tony Page and indicating that he thought Page had added the citation himself? My interest is why you saw that single edit on a page that you have never edited and felt it necessary to go to WP:ANI immediately thereafter. Did you discuss the edit with Mitsube? I don't see it. Is this part of some larger issue that is irrelevant to that particular edit? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, just another random question. Why did you called User: Mitsube's editing a "hatchet job" on an article you never even edited? And as your first comment to the talk page? Did you just happen to notice his editing and felt that the best way to respond was by attacking him on the talk page? Doesn't that seem a bit passive-aggressive? Wouldn't it be more effective to actually discuss with him instead of just claiming "he doesn't understand" things you do? So it looks like you found an article, made a comment on the talk page, talked to Mitsube on another article and then complained to ANI, all in the manner of an hour? Am I correct? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
In this edit, you altered sourced material and introduced new, unsourced material that is factually inaccurate. The Tibetan tradition attributes authorship of the Ratnagotravibhaga to Asanga/Maitreya, but the Chinese tradition attributes it to someone else, and Peter Harvey finds the former attribution less plausible. This information can be found on page 114 of Harvey's "Introduction to Buddhism."
- I am not interested in hearing about your life or your opinions. If you add material that is unsourced, if I find it objectionable, I will tag or remove it. Mitsube (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. Mitsube (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, friend. In regards to your edit about the Buddhist "atman", the British philosopher and spearer Alan Watts said that the word "atman" in Sanskrit also- like the Greek "atom" literally means "un-breakable", as is, describes the primordial "pure" self. If you're not sure about this, check out his speeches available on youtube, of which there are many. Anyway, I'm only going to change back the edit when you read this. Cheers, and health be to you. Le Anh-Huy (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Mr. Le: sorry to interject, but I felt the need to point out that Alan Watts was more of a philosopher and populariser and less of an authoritative scholar. I wonder if he had any Sanskrit at all; it seems quite doubtful that he is an authority on Indo-European etymologies.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 23:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Just giving the name of the scholar who advances a position is not sufficient. You need to provide a full citation to the work or works in which the hypothesis is proposed along with publication data and page numbers, please. Yworo (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Long Quote in Nirvana Article
Thanks for clarifying. I was just guessing that it was Pali, but I have to admit that it didn't really look like Pali to me either. I'm a bit tempted to remove the other Pali quotation too. It's always inspiring to see ancient texts, as a practitioner, but it's hard to see how it could be useful to the reader of an encyclopedia--it's more like source material than something that belongs in an article. Abhayakara (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Refreshingly Quiet Past Year for Buddhist Editing!
Hello Anam Gumnam. I hope you are well and not too afflicted with pain in consequence of the health problems under which you have been labouring for some years. I just wanted to ask if you have noticed how refreshingly pleasant editing Buddhist articles has become over the past year, since a certain utterly obnoxious and hideously biased editor named 'M....be' has seemingly vanished! Thank you for all your superlative contributions to Buddhist discussion on the pages of Wikipedia in the past. Best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)