User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship

See also: User talk:Bladesmulti/Grammar

Vajra

Reaching quicker

ANI discussion This mentorship resulted from an extended discussion of a siteban for Bladesmulti. See [1]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) mentor Hello Bladesmulti, are you interested in having a mentor? I would be happy to show you the ropes around here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Do it 72.192.84.101. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Okay. First lesson. Stop responding to StuffAndTruth. I have struck you through. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Bladesmulti, I again offer to help you put your ideas into Standard English. Judging from some comments at AN/I, others have commented on your lack of fluency in English. This is my last offer. (You ignored my last offer of help.)CorinneSD (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 74.192. Yes, I saw your edit. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Never ignored you CorinneSD. Not even once. And I read your last reply on your talk page as well. It was really emotional. But anyways, Hope to learn a lot more from you. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC) (( fixed by mentor #1. second lesson, do not insult your new mentor #2, bladesmulti. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC) )) Hello CorinneSD, delighted to have you offer.  :-)   Please call me 74. Do you wish to set any conditions on mentorship, or do you think five edits per day is enough of a limit that we can train Bladesmulti to be a wikipedian? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC) JJ - I'm still thinking it over. If I agree, then I prefer to focus on content: what sources do you use, how do you find them, what makes them reliable - or not? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Sure, that would be extremely helpful. There is a sourcing-question in edit#1 for 2014-01-29, about whether Ājīvika is properly considered a subset of Hinduism. There is a sourcing-question in edit#2 for 2014-01-29, about whether there are 867M or 999M people that follow Hinduism. You are free to comment here, or you can make a new section on your own user-talkpage with your comments for Bladesmulti, or even work directly on the articles and article-talkpages where Bladesmulti edits... totally your WP:CHOICE whether/where/howMuch you wish to be a co-mentor. Thanks, and let me know if I can help, or if you need *me* to change style/focus/etc.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Objectives Copied from User talk:Bladesmulti#Please see the details of ANI close Content/sourcing/etc Pre-positioning regarding community expectations, behaviour, and where togo for help Blades fully explaining CIVIL/NPA/DR and exactly how they plan to respond to future issues, challenges to their edits, and "angry moments". ES&L 11:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Format I suggest we only provide a diff for the edit, and a link to the page-history, to keep this page shorter. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Analysis of edits 28 January 2014 Analysis of edits for today. Mainspace edits, and article-talkpage edits. Edits to your own user-talkpage, or to my user-talkpage, do not count against the daily limit. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC) 2014-01-28 edits, 3 good, 0 needing correction edit#1 for 2014-01-28 == 20:37, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+166)‎ . . Talk:Persecution of Traditional African Religion ‎ (→‎Why a Plural discussion is needed: "internal" persecution.) (current) I'll look at this and see if I like it, one moment. Yes, good edit. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC) edit#2 for 2014-01-28 == 20:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-8)‎ . . Shiva ‎ (Undid revision 592577865 by 198.105.214.104 (talk)) (current) Good work. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC) edit#two_and_a_half for 2014-01-28 == 22:16, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+199)‎ . . User talk:Tryptofish ‎ (→‎Criticism of Jainism.) Excellent work. I asked tryptofish, and they said that (just this time!) you can have a "free edit" on their talkpage, which does not count against your limit of five. They must have been impressed with your story of the elders.  :-)   Usually, though, if you post anywhere but here on your own talkpage, or on my user-talkpage, that would count as an edit. This is called "edit two-and-a-half" because it is a special exception to the usual rules. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC) no further edits on 2014-01-28. Successful finish of the UTC_day. You now have five (5) edits that you can make during 2014-01-29, to anywhere in mainspace, article-talkpages, and user-talkpages (not counting your own user-talkpage and my user-talkpage both of which are unlimited-edit-zones). Stay serene. Feel free to ask questions. Feel free to express concerns. This is a learning experience, not a punishment. Soon, you will be better, stronger, faster, and wiser than before.  :-)   HTH, thanks for your efforts. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC) lesson three-and-a-half Beware, 74 has humor, Hafspajen (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Absolutely.  :-)   But this is a serious situation, Special Agent Hafspajen, see the AN/I discussion. You are welcome to stick around, and be a co-mentor, if you would like to help teach Bladesmulti the true path, the way of Beboldo. p.s. Bladesmulti, you should study WP:-D as well. Being in edit-wars is frustrating and that is not what wikipedia is about. Hafspajen has been around for a long while, and they speak truth. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Soon he will feel like an act in a tumble dryer, if you go on mentoring the poor thing. Hafspajen (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Leave Barack alone, for God's sake. Now don't you two start editing that. Hafspajen (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I agree!  :-)   He is just an example. We will not edit his page... today. But tomorrow, who knows what tomorrow will bring? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC) That was an order!!! You leave him absolutely alone. Period. Hafspajen (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Sekrit... agent man... sekrit... agent man... they've given you a number, and they've taken 'way your name. <musical interlude> Operation Rendevous with Rama-Obama-Llama is a go! The clock is operating, Stockholm.  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC) OK, leave Bladesmulti to met his fate. :Groan . Hafspajen (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC) lesson three, WP:RS and WP:N Please skim these policies above, and then tell me the difference between a topic which achieves WP:42, and a topic which achieves WP:NOTEWORTHY. Thank you for your efforts to remain calm. They are working.  :-)   Tryptofish and Arilbnordby have both voted to oppose a site-ban, since you calmed down. That is good progress, appreciate it. Always stay serene here, it is the only way to let wikipedia happen. Too many people have too many hard conflicts, and too much emotion. You must stick to the high moral ground. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC) RS and Notablitiy are probably the best and most important concerns, although sometimes the conflict involves just more than that. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Okay. What is the difference between an article-topic which is WP:N, and a sentence-topic which is WP:NOTEWORTHY? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC) lesson four, WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:MEATPUPPET and WP:CANVASSING Please skim the policies above, and then consider the following scenario: I am working on the article Barack Obama I am in a content-dispute with User:CorinneSD They open up an RfC Is that a meatpuppet-behavior, a sockpuppet-behavior, or a canvassing-behavior? Explain your answer, with why it is (for each), or why it is not (for each). Danke. p.s. It is extremely annoying for another to call you a puppet. That cannot be helped. But it reflects more about *them* and their mindset, than it does about you. Remain serene. Stick to the high moral ground. Do not fight fire with fire. Do not call a spade a spade. Read WP:IMAGINE, and also WP:AGF, and then stick to pillar four, WP:NICE, like a rock. It is the foundation-stone of wikipedia. It is not made of rubber. You must respect it, at all times, on all pages. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Yes, Kevin gorman advised me to forget the names of editors, during the disputes, and just concentrate on what they have written. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Kevin's advice is excellent. But my question is different. These are different policies. WP:PUPPET isn't what Kevin spoke about. Look again at the steps above (#1,#2,#3). Is step#3 meatpuppet, sockpuppet, canvassing, or none of those? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC) lesson five, WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY Compare this version,[2] with this more recent version.[3] Good advice, when working on religious issues. Can you find any *mistakes* in these essays, that need fixing? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I have experienced each of those points before as well. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Okay, good. Tell me what the policies mean. What is NPOV? What is the best way to handle CONTROVERY about an article? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Dear 74. Dear 74, Sometimes users Rush. They call anything, I have no idea how many people I may have impersonated recently. But I am giving time reading these links. So might be responding late. Thanks Bladesmulti (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Yes, people often jump to conclusions. People are mostly accusing you of being similar to other usernames, who also edit wikipedia. That is not a problem, and people are wrong to make speculative accusations about it that way. But wikipedia has a way to check, and see if one person is using many names (on the same computer!).   Consider this example. One day, you login with the password for User:Bladesmulti. Then the next day, you the very SAME person, login with the password for User:MultibladesPuppet. Do you understand? That is bad. If you do that, you are pretending to be two people, because you would have two usernames and two passwords, but you are really just one person. This is misleading. So wikipedia will do a check, and see if you are one person, but using many usernames, not just your own User:Bladesmulti username. As long as you just use one name, that is no problem, you cannot get into trouble thataway. Does this make sense?   Feel free to take your time on your lessons, there is no WP:DEADLINE. But it will be better for your learning, if you try and approach the pages with a beginner's-mind at first. Do not try and understand them deeply. Just read what they say quickly, and then answer here as best you can. If you answer incorrectly, that is totally fine. It is more than fine, it is good: it will help me understand how to teach you, faster. Also, maybe we can improve the way the policies are written. Some of them are confusing! Even to me.  :-)   Let me know if you have any questions, or concerns, in a new section. You can also leave a note on my user-talkpage, at any time. In particular, you should immediately leave me a note if you are thinking you might get into an edit-war, or if someone says they are unhappy with something. Just stop whatever it is, and wait for me or one of your other mentors to arrive. We will get it straightened out, and help you understand how the trouble got started. The key to wikipedia is giving knowledge to the readership, right? The key to editing wikipedia wisely, is learning how to edit in a way that is smooth for all concerned. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia, it's appreciated. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Analysis of edits 29 January 2014 Analysis of edits for 2014-01-29. ((rough draft)) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Edit#1 Ājīvika Casus Edits 10:03, 29 Dec 2013‎ Bladesmulti (+13)‎ () WP:BOLD is good (WP:BRD phase#1), blank edit-summary is bad 12:39, 23 Jan 2014‎ ச.பிரபாகரன் (-13)‎ (Undid, Ajivika is not related to/part of Hinduism.) revert is good (WP:BRD phase#2) 12:53, 23 Jan 2014‎ Bladesmulti (+13)‎ (Undid, Bring to talk, their population statistics have been included with hindus, always) undo is bad, there is no such thing as WP:BRRD 17:25, 23 Jan 2014‎ The Rahul Jain (-13)‎ (Undid) re-revert BY ANOTHER PERSON is good, back to WP:BRD phase#3 17:45, 23 Jan 2014‎ Bladesmulti (+13)‎ (Undid, Dispute not over yet) undo is bad, there is no such thing as WP:BRRRRD 18:06, 23 Jan 2014‎ The Rahul Jain (-13)‎ (Undid) re-re-revert BY THE SAME PERSON is bad, now *two* people are in an edit-war, WP:BRRRRRD Discussion - Talk:Ājīvika#Ajivika - Part of Hinduism? Is "Ajivika population statistics have been included with hindus", a proper reason/reference to include Ājīvika to Hinduism?. There are literature evidences like Manimekalai dated 100 AD-200AD which explains 6 different types of religions(philosophies) in ancient India, in which Vaidhika(Current Hinduism) and Ājīvika are treated as different philosophies. Ājīvika researcher A.L.Basham also mentioned in his book "History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas" that Ajivika is not a part of Hinduism. He mentioned that Ajivika and Hinduism as different religions. Please provide proper reference to include Hinduism tag to this page. -- Maverick (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Read "History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas, a Vanished Indian Religion" on Page 170 it writes that ajivika served Narayana, anyways, Jatila, Ajivika, or Carvaka are similar to each other, regarded as school of Hinduism. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC) The religions of Ajivika, Charvaka, Buddhism and Jainism are not considered as part of Hinduism. They might share some common religious figures, like Islam and Christianity share Adam, Abraham etc. but that does not make those religions as a part of one another. --Rahul (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC) No one talked about Buddhism or Jainism. It is already proven that "charvaka" are hindu, one of the traditional school. Don't need further explanation. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC) "Avijika those who serve Narayana. This remarkable passage was noted by Kern, who inferred from it that the Ajivikas were orthodox Vaisnava ascetics. His view was supported by Buler. The passage was studied by Hoernle, who commented on it fully. Bhattopala states that the Ekadandines or Ajivikas were devotees of Narayana, that is Vishnu." From History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas, a Vanished Indian Religion, page 170. The book is linked above already. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC) The given book does not say that ajivika were followers of Hinduism. --Rahul (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Vaisnava are hindus. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC) It is irrelevant whether Vaisnava are hindus or not. This article is about Ajivika not Vaisnava. --Rahul (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC) I guess we are done. Read the source, that is given above. It is clear that number of scholars agree that they are indeed Vaisnava, i.e Hindu. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC) The term "Hinduism" did not come into use to mean a religion (popular Hinduism as we know today) until about 19th century. The term Hindu as used in India, as well as outside implied an ethnicity until 19th century. It is a misuse of the term to use it for the period in question. In the time of Makkhali Goshal, the word Hindu was totally unknown in India. Note Ajivikas have been extinct for along time. Note that Jains also worship Rama and Hanumana as moksha-gami, and use the term Narayana, the heritage is not exclusive to a specific religious group. Malaiya (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Malaiya, first use of "Hindu", dates back to 6th Century BCE. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Clearly, you haven't read what I had written.Malaiya (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Rahul, can you explain how the source is misrepresented? When it says that "Avijika those who serve Narayana. This remarkable passage was noted by Kern, who inferred from it that the Ajivikas were orthodox Vaisnava ascetics. His view was supported by Buler. The passage was studied by Hoernle, who commented on it fully. Bhattopala states that the Ekadandines or Ajivikas were devotees of Narayana, that is Vishnu." Bladesmulti (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I think Hindu and Jain Wikipedia editors should work together to provide reliable unbiased information about Dharmic traditions, which is Wikipedia's mission; rather than wasting time and effort engaging in frivolous confrontations like this.Malaiya (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC). Don't know what you are talking there. But Rudolf Hoernlé was well learned. So were Buler, Kern. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Responses & advice 74 - Hello Bladesmulti, you are saying that you don't understand Malaiya, and Malaiya is also saying that you don't understand. Sometimes it is okay not to understand. But usually, it is important to figure out what the other people are saying so that you can properly discuss with them. Otherwise, you are very likely to get into edit-wars, where you misunderstood the talkpage, and changed mainspace, but someone else reverts you immediately. Talk:Ājīvika is a place where you need to be sure you understand. I will ask Malaiya if they can come here, for a discussion with you and me, in a new section below. Also, I will help you understand what Malaiya is saying, as *I* understand it. This is difficult work, understanding each other, but very important work. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC) JJ - Provide full source: author, date of publication, title, publisher, link Authorship affects reliability: who is this author? Date of publiscation: 1951 is not very recent Publisher: Motilall is good Link: make sit easier to verify the source; friendly gesture to other editors, and makes you more reliable Quotes from source: "The orthodox commentator, Bhattotpala, misunderstanding the position, confused the heterodox Ajivika with the orthodox Dandin." (p.170-171) I didn't read the source further, but I think that to use you should read the relevant pages, not just search for quotes History of Hinduism - we've discussed this several times before. You don't have to agree with me, but you are aware that most scholars probably won't state that Hnduism existed in the 6th century BCE. I won't repeat the arguments; you can find them at Hinduism (okay, a tiny little bit: it also isn't correct that there wasn't "Hinduism" before the 19th century. hiltebeitel, Nath, etc. take roy=ughly the beginning of the CE as the starting point. Nicholson and Lorenzen point to the beginning of the Muslim era for the start of a sense of internal unity). I'm glad that my edits are sinking in with other editors, though. From the little bit that I know, the Ajivikas were a shramanic movement, related to Buddhism and Jainism. According to Samuel (yeah yeah, here we go again), you can't reduce Buddhism to Hinduism, but you can also not threat them as completely separate entities. So, this whole discussion wasn't necessary, I think. If you don't agree with this "alternative" dating of Hinduism, that's fine, and you're fully entitled to do so - but at Wikipedia you have to work with WP:RS, and try to be as conscient as possible when using them. Ask yourself: is it correct what I'm thinking? What info falsificates it? Are there other sources - good sources - which confirm what I'm thinking? You don't have to push it; take your time to nourish your ideas and opinions, and feed them with WP:RS. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC) JJ, the discussion is about "Vaishnava" there. That Ajivika were Vaishnavs, as per the source on which various writers, scholars have given their opinions. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Yes, correct. But did the scholars say that Vaishnavs are Hindus? That is the final step, in this logical chain. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC) When controversial, check with other sources - http://www.philtar.ac.uk/encyclopedia/hindu/ascetic/ajiv: "After this period the Ajivikas declined and the main references to them come in Tamil literature. There is evidence that they survived in South India until the fourteenth century. It seems that at the end there were two schools of Ajivikas. One was absorbed by the devotional Vaishnavas, the other was closer to Gosala's original teachings and was absorbed by the Digambara Jains." Sorry, no fun this I guess. But you're still here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Edit#2 Hindu art Casus Edits 18:42, 23 Jan 2014‎ Bladesmulti (+255)‎ () WP:BOLD is good (WP:BRD phase#1), blank edit-summary is bad 20:31, 26 Jan 2014‎ The Rahul Jain (-255)‎ (not in source) revert is good (WP:BRD phase#2) 09:46, 28 Jan 2014‎ Bladesmulti (+255)‎ (As per source) undo is bad (WP:BRD phase#2) 13:02, 28 Jan 2014‎ The Rahul Jain (-255)‎ (Undid, It is not there in the source. Read it carefully, Don't misrepresent the source. It is disruptive.) Changes to mainspace Hinduism is the predominant religion in India, it has approximately 867 million followers making up about 13% of the world’s population and as such the culture that ensues it is full of different aspects of life that are effected by art. Hinduism, with its 1 billion followers, it makes up about 15% of the world’s population and as such the culture that ensues it is full of different aspects of life that are effected by art. Hinduism is the predominant religion in India (with approximately 867 million to 1 billion followers) making up about 14% of the world’s population. The culture that ensues from Hinduism is full of different aspects of life that are impacted by art. References Responses & advice Hello Bladesmulti, this edit was a mistake. You are removing a source, and replacing it with another source. For a non-controversial change, overwriting the existing source with your preferred source, would be not-very-helpful. Wikipedia is supposed to cover the *history* of topics, not just the latest statistics: see WP:NOTNEWS. Deleting sources is usually therefore just flat wrong, because they have useful historical information, summarized by a wikipedian who worked hard on adding that source. Deletion of sources keeps the readership from learning the history of the topic, and also wipes out the hard work of another wikipedian. More importantly, the change you are making *is* controversial, and you know it is controversial, you are fighting about population-figures in many other articles. In fact, just four minutes before making this "stat update" change to Hindu art, you were continuing a wikt:stubborn argument over at Talk:Ājīvika about population figures. This is not the correct path. For a likely-to-be-controversial change, overwriting the existing source with your preferred source, would be very-much-unhelpful. Edit#2 for 2014-01-29 is a poor edit. I will help you rewrite it here on your talkpage, and then when we have it done properly and appropriately, without overwriting anything, I will put the corrected prose into the article. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I see, had this page from the talk of Tryptofish honestly, requiring cleanup, but obviously you can suggest better. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Yes, it is good that you are keeping up with Tryptofish. You can 'ping' them like that, if you wish. But look at the Hindu art page, and what needs cleanup the most? There are two big lists of 64 kinds of art... one with translation, one without translation. Those should be merged into one list. Second, there are not very many wikilinks, to the articles on the individual arts which are mentioned: painting, pottery, et cetera.   What change did you pick? The population-number of Hindus in the world. Why? Because you care about that number deeply. That, caring by itself, is fine. What is *not* fine, is edit-warring over that number. But what is worrying, is that you picked that change, as the biggest problem with the article.  :-)   Widen your eyes a bit, please. The article is a bit of a mess, to my eyes, but when you looked at it, the first thing that looked like it needed fixing to you, was the current population-statistic. Nothing wrong with fixing that! But be aware that it is a controversial bit of data, and therefore must be handled carefully. See attempt#3 above, for how I would have fixed the population-sentence. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I'm looking in here from time to time, and I fully agree with 74. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Total number is like, 1.1 billion. It is true that we cannot reject one reliable source for another. We can mention the year of estimation instead. Great one. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Okay. So, what should the sentence say? Practice rewriting it. Here is what it says now. Hinduism, with its 1 billion followers, it makes up about 15% of the world’s population[1] and as such the culture that ensues it is full of different aspects of life that are effected by art. What would an improved sentence look like. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#3 [4] India–United States relations ‎ (Undid revision 592952235 by 72.46.194.178 (talk) Nothing to do with this page, unless it was concern of USA as well) Responses & advice TBD. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC) What is TBD? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC) TBD == To Be Done.  :-)   I had to go do some other work, but I wanted to put the link in, so JJ and CorinneSD could discuss this with you. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Why did you remove this one? (Just curious) By the way, you also removed a header. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC) This is the first time I have looked at this mentoring page. I looked at this edit and saw that Bladesmulti reverted an edit because he/she felt the material did not belong in the article. I cannot judge that; I'll leave that to JJ and 74. I don't see anything I need to comment on here.CorinneSD (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC) It was unrelated, because US has no role with launch of mars mission, neither the edit could explain how it has/could/would effect the relations of 2 countries. That IP probably had no idea where to insert. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Edit#4 [5] Talk:Pantheism ‎(reply) Responses & advice No edit summary? You should say what your reply is, in essence. Summarize your point into a single clear sentence, and put that into the edit-summary, please. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Sure. By next time I will keep it on mind. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC) One source? Such a complicated topic? Again, compare sources. Interesting, by the way, that the link for "Sanatana Dharma" has been changed from "Hinduism" to "Sanātanī. Good change, I think, at first sight. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC) By the way, NaturaNaturans is a good editor, as far as I know. Knowlegeable at the topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Nope. A SPA, and offensive. Out to watch when if i am unactive, pretends to be page owner too. I don't know if anyone would demand the sources to be checked only because someone alleges that I misrepresent source, there's something else, and clear. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Edit#5[6] Talk:Pantheism Responses & advice Okay, your five edits for 2014-01-29 UTC_day are over. Please just edit your own User_talk:Bladesmulti for the next 7 hours, until 00:01 UTC on 2014-01-30. You can work on lesson four and lesson three, or you can respond to our edit discussions here. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Analysis of edits 30 January 2014 Edit#1 as of 02:46, 30 Jan Talk:Criticism of Jainism 03:46, 30 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+402)‎ . . Talk:Criticism of Jainism ‎ (→‎Revisions in the "Women" section) You quote this sentence: "There was a disagreement between early Hinduism, which did not allow scriptural access to women, and ascetic movements such as Jainism which were based on equality" Which means: Early Hinduism && early Jainism (plus other early ascetic movements) disagreed about whether women could access scripture. Early Hinduism said women could not access scripture. Early Jainism (plus other early ascetic movements) said women could access scripture. Make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC) And then you say this at 02:46 on 2014-01-30: (($quote)) is not related to the page. Because the page is related to jainism, not hinduism. Nor it has any competence with hinduism in this regard. Which I think means: (($quote)) is a criticism of early Hinduism, so the quote is off-topic here. This page is called Criticism of Jainism. The quote could be moved to Criticism of Hinduism. However, because it is a quote about early Hinduism, not modern Hinduism, the criticism holds no weight nowadays. The quote probably belongs at History of Hinduism. Is that what you are trying to say? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Neither. Editor referred to unconfirmed scholarship, so we may have to discuss about the credibility of source, before we could implement. And since, the page was related to criticism of Jainism, there is no need to add anything about Hinduism. Either way, it was not even criticism. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Okay, I understand your meaning. So first, we will practice re-writing. This is not related to the page. Because the page is related to jainism, not hinduism. Nor it has any competence with hinduism in this regard. What should it look like? Try writing the same thing again, but use different words, that make the meaning clear. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC) 74: I don't think Bladesmulti knows what it should look like. If you don't mind, I will make a grammar lesson out of this, on the grammar page.CorinneSD (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Bladesmulti Bladesmulti, where are you? I also have wondered why you have nearly stopped editing. I hope you have not given up editing. If you read carefully what 74 and I have written, you will see praise for your contributions and your enthusiasm. That is why we are taking the time to help you. If there is anything about the way we are going about it, you need to speak up and say something. If you feel that this mentorship imposed on you is unjust, say that, too. If you feel that the assignments are too many and too overwhelming, you can ask that they be reduced. I believe you will learn something through this mentoring, but you do have some say in how it proceeds. And it will not go on indefinitely. Best regards,CorinneSD (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Just chirping in. Bladesmulti: You have made too many good edits at Wikipedia in the eyes of those looking at your profile that they wish you away. That is WHY people have volunteered to mentorship, because they see your evident strong potential (otherwise, they would just have said, kick him out). As an outside editor, I hope you get your spirits back up, and if you want to assign me a page or two to keep close watch on while you have limited editing opportunities, I'll be happy to fulfill the role of a well-minded editor (but I'm not a mentor, I'm not experienced enough for that), in particular to keep strong watch that none of your well-sourced contributions on those pages go down the memory drain.Arildnordby (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks both. I know, but there is a confusion, this is going to be 6th edit. I am not sure, If 5 edits are limited with articles(including or excluding talk page), or 5 edit overall(made anywhere), now there are about 15+ replies everyday, wonder how they can be responded at once. So I thought of clearing this out first. Any answers? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Articles and article-talk. Here you can go loose Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Here is the counting, so far, for 2014-01-31. n/a 09:18, 31 Jan User:Bladesmulti ‎ (Add page) (current) n/a 09:16, 31 Jan User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship ‎ (→‎Analysis of edits 31 January 2014: 3/3 answers) (current) n/a 08:38, 31 Jan User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship ‎ (→‎Bladesmulti: 5 edit overall or only articles?) #3. 07:42, 31 Jan Talk:Pantheism ‎ (→‎Fringe Hinduism Paragraph: On tag) n/a 07:40, 31 Jan User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship ‎ (→‎Responses & advice: Huh) n/a 07:37, 31 Jan User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship ‎ (→‎Responses & advice: 29th jan) #2. 07:33, 31 Jan Talk:Gautama Buddha ‎ (→‎Buddha ashes stolen: Added, but different pages) (current) #1. 07:28, 31 Jan Persecution of Traditional African Religion ‎ (Agreed on talk, "proponents of different ideologies" is more of NPOV) (current) You can make as many edits as you want, to these pages: User:Bladesmulti User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship User talk:Bladesmulti User talk:74.192.84.101 These are the only "unlimited" pages. As your mentorship progresses, your 5-per-day limit will go upwards, to 10-per-day, then 20-per-day, then 40-per-day, and then unlimited again. If there are problems, and we co-mentors need you to slow down, the limit might go back down again. The limit is for us, so we can keep up. You are a hard worker!  :-)   I will look over these recent edits. Does the 5-per-day-limit make sense to you now? Does the reason for the limit make sense? It is so that we have time to be your co-mentors. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I restate my offer, Bladesmulti. If you wish me to keep watch on one of those pages you feel is now moving away from how YOU would like to see it done, you are perfectly free to make on your Talk Page devoted to that, voicing your specific concerns. Then, I can be substitute editor for you removing obviously wrong edits in your disfavour, but in those cases where I feel the move was defensible, I will give you my arguments for choosing not to revert it.Arildnordby (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your time, and every advise. I will be making a page about it here, if it will be needed. Nothing to worry about. I will be keeping everything live. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Your welcome! A question: At the moment, your new and interesting article is slightly wanting in inline references. Would you like me to search a bit on the Internet to add sources I feel properly back it up? (I won't mind if you later on improve references I've made!)Arildnordby (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Uh... yes. The answer is yes. Bladesmulti does not WP:OWN the article, even though they did create it. Please, go forth and add sources!  :-)   Nobody will mind. Bladesmulti can watch how you work, and learn by example. I am trying to find sources for the Carvaka article, at the moment, where I see you commented; if you have a position on whether R2/R3/R4/R5 are actually WP:RS, that would also be helpful to know. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC) True enough. But, Bladesmulti has a prior competence&interest here, both on Carvaka and his newest article, and I'm basically asking him which article topic he would like me to improve myself upon before I do it. I takes me time to brush up knowledge on new topics as well! I'd like to see which topic Bladesmulti hopes that I will take the effort to engage myself in, prior to doing so (and thus feel legitimated in providing edits on)Arildnordby (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Analysis of edits 31 January 2014 Edit#1 Persecution of Traditional African Religion 08:28, 31 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-36)‎ . . Persecution of Traditional African Religion ‎ (Agreed on talk, "proponents of different ideologies" is more of NPOV) There is nothing like "native religions" in the source. But it was written only for making the lead, neutral, by other person. I just made it better, after proposing like 3 days ago, had 2-3 agreements too. I disagree with the latest tags of that article though, but let it be there for few days, so people can add some more views, and certainly make the article larger, good for me, since I had created that page. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Edit#2 Talk:Gautama Buddha 08:33, 31 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+265)‎ . . Talk:Gautama Buddha ‎ (→‎Buddha ashes stolen: Added, but different pages) JJ - I would be interested in a source; what's this editor talking about, and what's it based on? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Like many other popular people. Buddha's remains were founded. But it is not notable for the main page. Because it is biographical page. These researches(about his ashes) are made after 2400 years. While some would consider it as true, some wont. It can be disputed. I was only trying to tell the user, that we have already got separate pages, for such researches. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Edit#3 Talk:Pantheism 08:42, 31 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+403)‎ . . Talk:Pantheism ‎ (→‎Fringe Hinduism Paragraph: On tag) Your edit: "Once again, we are probably done. FMMonty, I believe that tag can be removed from section. And NaturaNaturans, if I had to interpret the whole book, it will become WP:UNDUE. It would be better to make whole new article then. But then again, it is not certainly needed, at least not now. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)" JJ: Personally I find this topic of Pantheism to difficult to participate in. But reading the thread, I think it would be wise to make a deeper study of the subject, collect sources, and give information which is comprehensible. Frankly, I hardly understand the paragraph in the article. An extra problem may be that "pantheism" is a relatively modern, and western, term. So anything we say about "pantheism in Hinduism" is most likely based on western sources, or sources influenced by western thinking. Okay, some thoughts on the topic itself: God/The One/Brahman is transcendent and immanent, according to "mainstream" Hindu thought, isn't it? That's not pantheism, as far as I can see. Advaita Vedanta also isn't pantheism, is it? And Dvaita Vedanta surely isn't. I suspect, but that's a thought that just pops up now, that any pantheistic Hindu thought is very recent, under influence of contemporary western thinking. That doesn't matter; it's just a sign that religious thought keeps changing, that Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan also aren't the final articulation of Hinduism, etc. But, that's just my thought. I don't have any source for that. Food for thought and research here, I guess. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Nothing is Fringe in that section, FMMonty had reverted back the edit by NN while having a very little doubt that something might have been misrepresented, he probably believed on NN a bit then. But It was proven under a few hours, that nothing is fringe, he admitted himself too. And later it was reviewed by 3 more editors. So the tag can be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Fringe" was an unlucky choice of words. But it's not a clear section at all, as discussed at the Talk page there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC) BTW Joshua Jonathan, I would tell here. That monotheism is "one god" belief". While Pantheism is regarded by some as belief about "infinite" gods. Just having a very basic and typical opinion. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC) old dispute, which is now over, but we can still learn from 74: Here is a snippet from another conversation: You (and other editors) are getting into difficult terminilogical domains here, Bladesmulti! Take the notorious case of the thuggee who, in the traditional (but disputed) view were worshippers of Kali, and justified their robberies and murders as devotions to Kali, allowed/wanted by her. Is this to be called human sacrifice? Or is religiously "justified" sneak killings something else? In my personal view, human sacrifice as a religious institution, is typically in the form of some sort of necessary, public atonement of the society's sins, rather than just a moral license given by a goddess to her worshippers to commit murder. That is, the sacrifice is a necessary hurt the society inflicts upon itself, NOT the result of having been granted by the goddess a position of morality beyond normal boundaries. But, as I said, there are really difficult conceptual tangles here!Arildnordby (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC) In short, if a goddess bestows upon you the privilege of murdering others that is NOT human sacrifice you are engaging in, but if a goddess commands you to make the cost of murdering someone, THAT's human sacrifice. In my view.Arildnordby (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Some murderers and robbers, that included different tribes. People do use god's reference, that they command them for doing so. But in short, its nothing shocking. Like i pointed above. There is certainly no source. Few deadlinks though, they had no credibility either. But that is same with other 4-5 other events. That were removed from the page. One of them misrepresented the primary source(of animal sacrifice) as human sacrifice, on page. Consensus was no secret, revealed to 1-2 noticeboards, 3or and dougweller too. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Bladesmulti, since I do not really understand this, I will copy this paragraph to your mentor-page, and reply to you there. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC) 74. Please see questions, below. Joshua Jonathan: which page is this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 74 The snippet is from a conversation on the talkpage, about what categories a hypothetical article would belong in. It is not really related to mainspace, although there is a talkpage conversation about the see-also section of Mohammed Atta. I pasted it here as a grammar-exercise. One that I intend to see completed!  :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 74: Can you help me rewrite your paragraph, Bladesmulti? For example, your first sentence was this: Some murderers and robbers, that included different tribes. Did you mean: Some murderers and robbers, were found in every different tribe. (( == all tribes have some bad people in them )) Or did you mean: Several murderers and robbers, which belonged to different tribes, were accused of engaging in human sacrifice. (( == murderers from tribe#1 were lumped in together with tribe#2 which *actually* engaged in human sacrifice )) Or maybe you meant something else, please tell me the correct meaning. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC) I was in hurry, had to dinner. So didn't explained best way. But didn't got back either then. But thanks. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Working case: Pantheism Pantheism might be an interesting case to work on further. I tried to find sources on "Hinduism & Pantheism", but found close to nothing. How about you? What can you find - reliable & rubbish, whatever. Would you like to give it a try? Then we can go work through them together, and see what we can add to the Pantheism-article. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Surely, I will work on it, through a sandbox. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Analysis of edits 01 February 2014 Edit#1 Ashoka 04:34, 1 February 2014 (diff | hist) (-6,045)‎ Ashoka ‎ (Reverted good faith edits by 72.185.103.145, written like essay and nothing really new for the article. Half being unrelated) Joshua Jonathan: Okay, checks: No previous insertion/deletion Who's 72.185.103.145? 6 edits, empty talk page, United States You're right here, I guess. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, that person probably summarized Seleucid–Mauryan war, I was on Seleucus I Nicator, in early days so I know. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#2 Talk:Cārvāka 05:38, 1 February 2014 (+9)‎ Talk:Cārvāka ‎ (→‎RfC: Was Cārvāka a Hindu Nastika system?: ajivika either) + 05:36, 1 February 2014 (+356)‎ Talk:Cārvāka ‎ (→‎RfC: Was Cārvāka a Hindu Nastika system?: as usual) Joshua Jonathan: Oh help, you and Rahul again... User:74.192.84.101, could you please drop in here? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC) I am not too worried about content-disputes in mainspace. Bladesmulti needs to concentrated on the mentorship pages. p.s. Anons have no watchlists, you need to whammy my page if you want fast action. p.p.s. I've been collecting some Carvaka sources for a bit now. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#3 Ab Band District 05:44, 1 February 2014 (-147)‎ Ab Band District ‎ (Removed real name, and wordpress link) Joshua Jonathan: Poorly referenced article. Fine; no comment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#4 & 5 User talk:Hariboneagle927#Anti-India sentiment - Edits about philipines 09:15, 1 February 2014 (+333)‎ User talk:Hariboneagle927 ‎ (→‎Edits about philipines: new section) 11:35, 1 February 2014 (+320)‎ User talk:Hariboneagle927 ‎ (→‎Edits about philipines: search complete) Joshua Jonathan: Some comments here: "more reliable source" - did you check the source? Look at the Editorial Advisors; what's more, it's published by the "Center for Southeast Asian Studies Kyoto University". Very good source, I'd say. "You added Philippines under Bangladesh" - and what's yoyr question or problem here? I think you should specify this; now you just "drop" a statement. I also searched "Bombay 5-6": [7] [8] [9] [10] "Make sure if the information is backed by reliable sources. I will give it a few days." - I think you should come back to this; it's not very nice, and not correct, regarding the source. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC) The first source describes well. There is no anti-indian sentiment though. Because Indian sikh have nickname, it doesn't means that they are hated in Philippines. Sentiment is just bigger deal. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Analysis of edits 02 February 2014 Yeah, and the rest will be waiting for today... Maybe tomorrow, but I'm interested to see what you did on Max Muller. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#1, 2, 4 Max Müller #1 05:38, 2 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,585)‎ . . Max Müller ‎ (Citations provided) #2 06:29, 2 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,431)‎ . . Max Müller ‎ (Adding back essentials, just found them in these books) #4 11:19, 2 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+75)‎ . . Max Müller ‎ (Fixed ISBN, one source required edition number, added further links, one category.) (current) Joshua Jonathan: @1: Interesting choices. Harmsworth? 1907? Anyway, you found sources. I'm really curious how? @2: Nice quote from Muller. It is not completely neutral to use this one, but it's also good; this "uprooting" is exactly what's taking place, and what's worrying many traditional Hindus, so it's relevant. It's also a subtle criticism of western scholars - and editors! - so, nice subtle rhetorics. Well done! And good addition on "Aryanism". This is good! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC) George Sandeman is quiet notable author. So are his books. This encyclopedia got thousands of pages. About the quote, Sitush had removed it, because of primary source. And other information, that Muller was saddened how his theories were wrongfully used for racism, I had removed it months ago. But yesterday when I was reading these books, I found that he was really saddened, it reflects that his intention were pure, not impure like many people thinks. So added back both of the information, with the secondary sources. Muller's page became unpopular probably because of too many "citation needed" tags. Will need to do a lot of work. Thus I am reading a lot, these days. Hope that page will be G+ someday. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#3 religion in India 11:04, 2 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Religion in India ‎ (Reverted wrong starts) Joshua Jonathan: Based on which source? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC) National consesus. It is provided on the main page. There is always someone, who changes those stats. Maybe in all religion-stat pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC) There's even a regular sock who gets caught once in a while in a new reincarnation for doing that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#5 Nadar (caste) 17:13, 2 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+281)‎ . . Nadar (caste) ‎ (Add source for SL) Joshua Jonathan: "University of California", good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC) Analysis of edits 04 february 2014 Edit#1 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anumarana 16:07, 4 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+433)‎ . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anumarana ‎ Joshua Jonathan: So, big compliment! "Comment User:Bladesmulti deserves full credit for re-thinking his position (at the time he wrote it, I was in full agreement with him, due to complete lack of sources warranting the independent standing of the article), even though he made a minor technical mistake in deleting his prior comment when issuing his change of mind.Arildnordby (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)" Good! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Analysis of edits 05 february 2014 Edit#1 Caste 13:18, 5 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-5,333)‎ . . Caste ‎ (Undid revision 593998210 by Msramkrish (talk) WP:UNDUE Not related to this page.) Joshua Jonathan: Agree. Synonymous is "reads like a personal essay"; "unsourced" was also a good reason te delete this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#2 Pollution of Lake Karachay 13:19, 5 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-24)‎ . . Pollution of Lake Karachay ‎ (→‎Prevalence of pollution: Same citation for whole paragraph.) Joshua Jonathan: You could also have copied the source, but alas. Did you check the source? "Glenwood Middle School" - this might trigger someone to search for a better source... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, at least that part require additional references. Edit#3 Environmental issues in India 13:22, 5 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1,124)‎ . . Environmental issues in India ‎ (Undid revision 593713762 by 120.63.64.236 (talk) copied from other page.) Joshua Jonathan: Copying from other pages is an sich not a problem. That this section was unsourced is a valid reason for deletion, though in that case one should start with tagging, or with searching for sources, when the info is relevant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC) ............[1]........[2](no refs though) easy to identify. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#4 Vishnu 13:22, 5 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-83)‎ . . Vishnu ‎ (Only 3 results for such name, including this wiki page.) Joshua Jonathan: I even only found one. Valid reason to delete. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#5 Criticism of Sikhism 13:23, 5 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Criticism of Sikhism ‎ (Undid revision 593714129 by 162.44.245.104 (talk) Not supported by source.) Joshua Jonathan: Another specimen of the wonderful "Criticism of..." series. Well, you know my opinion on this class of articles: delete them all (except "Criticism of Buddhism"; it might be fun to read what's wrong with "my" religion. Didn't read it, though). Not exactly up-to-date, this source. What more can I say? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC) You may want to check Criticism of Buddhism. You should, and also check the edit history. I had cleaned it up, earlier version provided special importance to linkedin, pope benedict, etc. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Analysis of edits 06 february 2014 Edit#1 Gharial 11:05, 6 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+257)‎ . . Gharial ‎ (→‎Diet: Added after talk page) Joshua Jonatha: I thrust the source is correct. It's up-to-date, that's good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#2 Hayagriva User 17:58, 6 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+425)‎ . . Hayagriva ‎ (Add origins, simple formatting, category) Joshua Joshua: It's amazing, the range of topics you come up with. I like this one. BRILL is a reliable publisher (I didn't check whether the info is correct; I thrust on it). These Indo-Aryan origins are fascinating. It is in accordance with what I've written at the Hinduism-page about the "Hindu-synthesis", and the merging of local traditions into the Vedic-Hinduistic pantheon. How many "incarnations" of Vishnu are there?!? Good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks, I was thinking about horses yesterday. So discovered something new. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#3 Horse worship 18:03, 6 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+770)‎ . . Horse worship ‎ (→‎Chronology of horse worship: add indus civilization) Joshua Jonathan: Ah, so far for the thrust. First it is Indo-Aryan, now it is Indus Valley Civilization? So, I did check the source now; I've got limited access, but saw enough to make a correction. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Yes there are 2 sources. One of them continues them as "Inhabitants", we are in agreement of the idea that people are Indo Aryan here, so is the writer. Not treating them as foreigners. Indo Aryan is right term, but you should establish a wikilink. Indo-Aryan_peoples <- This. And source mention "Indus valley", it is dated from 3300 BCE, - 1,300 BCE, like we agreed before. 2,000 BCE falls under this period. Current title is probably better, of sub section. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Could you provide links? and beware of WP:RS; 2,000 may fall under this period, but it does not mean that it belongs to the Indus Valley Civilization. Stick to the sources! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, it will be harder to relate. No problem. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Analysis of edits 07 february 2014 87 edits today; only 23 left for tomorrow. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Article and noticeboard-alike differs? Or not. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#1 &5 &7 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and Judaism (2nd nomination) 03:09, 7 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+232)‎ . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and Judaism (2nd nomination) Joshua Jonathan: Oh, get off his back! You're no match, and you know it. Try some WP:WIKILOVE instead. Exactly, my bad. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 05:07, 7 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+424)‎ . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and Judaism (2nd nomination) ‎ Joshua Jonathan: "Books that are published by Routledge, JHU, Suny, are not scholarly sources? Ok. "poorly sourced and written" You're catching up. Let's see now what those sources are - okay, I took a look. Good sources do not necessarily make up a good article. Patchwork - but that's my opinion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 07:13, 7 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+347)‎ . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and Judaism (2nd nomination) Joshua Jonathan: "nothing seems to be duplicated" - You're sure? I think Vanamonde93 means "duplicated at other pages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Even if some of his points are taken, regarding the article, they might be ok, the way article was, even 1 day before. But no more. You can compare diffs. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC) You're completely entitled to have your opinion on this. I won't vote in this one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#20 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anumarana User 03:37, 7 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+154)‎ . . Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anumarana ‎ Joshua Jonathan: No comment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#2 &6 Hinduism and Judaism 03:59, 7 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,971)‎ . . Hinduism and Judaism ‎ (add 2 cents) Joshua Jonathan: So they are among the oldest religions, and they have shared "notable relationship throughout the historical and modern times." Source? and what does this mean anyway? Oh, what the heck; I've already said how I think about this article... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC) First line was written by someone else. But if they are "amongst" oldest religion, cannot be argued really, we are not ignoring other old religions. On talk page, I had noted once, that Judaism might be 2nd or 3rd oldest religion of Indian subcontinent. But that is obviously, just talk.. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC) 07:09, 7 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,686)‎ . . Hinduism and Judaism ‎ (more.) Joshua Jonathan: Good that you corrected this one: "Judaism, known for its pioneering concept of monotheism, is also seen in Vedas, Bhagvada Gita and others." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#3 Caste 04:05, 7 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-176)‎ . . Caste ‎ (Lead and photo are unsourced, this page is not indian caste system, but just more than that.) Yes that information(by other user) doesn't focus or provide a worldwide view. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan:' I know this is a sensitive topic for you, but Wikipedia Commons does provide a source for the picture; you could have checked that one. And you're well that India's csate-system is the paradigmatic example. To me this is POV-editing, sorry. I've reverted your edit, and added sources.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Now that you are involved. You should try presenting a world wide view. Rigidity is disputed, establishment(whether 1830 or 2nd century AD) are also disputed, if it is about indian caste system. Word itself comes from Casta. As per WP:LEAD, the article should provide the view of whole article. Not just one sub section. Same with the images, how about these? [11], [12], But they don't provide worldwide view either. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Ok [[JJ, forget about the picture. What about following lead? Caste is a form of social stratification characterized by endogamy, hereditary transmission of a lifestyle which often includes an occupation, ritual status in a hierarchy and customary social interaction and exclusion based on cultural notions of purity and pollution.[2][3] Its paradigmatic ethnographic example[4] is the division of Indian society into rigid social groups, with roots in India's ancient history and persisting until today.[5] While castes are also categorized by racial backgroud, such as Casta of Spain, Al-Akhdam a ethnic group of Yemen. Caste are also generalized by Social rank, like Songbun of North Korea. However, the economic significance of the caste system in India has been declining as a result of urbanization and affirmative action programs. You can easily find sources on that page, if you want to add them, they are easy. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Blades, you're completely right that the lead should reflect the article, which is not the case now. And mentioning India specifically is also not neutral. So, those are good reasons to remove the whole sentence from the lead. The problem here is, that you are not a neutral editor, and that you've been trying for a longer period to "soften" the representation of the Indian caste-system. If you want to do that, you should start with a discussion at the Talk page. You could also try to find criticisms of the British criticism of the caste-system, to make clear that there are are still echoes of those British criticisms in the whole discussion. But then, for the balance, you should also have an open eye for the still existing inequalities in Indian society, I think. By the way, I've moved those sentences from the lead into the article and added some extra info. By the way, the section on India can hardly be called informative. Instead of arguing about (N)POV, it would be more interesting to add soem relevant info (that's not a critique towards you, that's a critique of that section). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC) It looks much better now. Anyways I agree with what you are saying, there is similar issue with almost every other section. We might be done of this page now, there are number of caste-related page, that have issues. Once again, thanks a lot for your efforts. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#4 Talk:Gharial 04:09, 7 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+287)‎ . . Talk:Gharial ‎ (→‎Gastroliths were found) (current) [rollback] Nothing too serious here. If multiple sources can be added, that is better. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan: Agree. Just take care to provide full info on a source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Analysis of edits 08 february 2014 Edit#1 &3 Hinduism and Judaism 04:02, 8 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2,909)‎ . . Hinduism and Judaism ‎ (removed Menashe, expanded historical) Joshua Jonathan: Barbara Holdrege - I'm sorry, but I don't understand what's being written here. Your syntax may be inaccurate, but sentences like the following are non-informative in their complexity: "multileveled cosmic reality that encircle both historical and transmundane dimensions, she further adds that sacred status, authority, function of scripture in these traditions are to a certain extent shaped by these conceptions and thus such a study is essential for understanding the role of Veda and Torah as the paradigmatic signs of their respective traditions." I think that it would be better to delete this paragraph and try again. Trade relations - you do know the difference between Babylon and Israel/Judeah, don't you? And what exactly "Judaism" was in 1000 BCE, I don't know. Not much, I think. It would be more accurate to mention the trade relations between India (which parts/places?) and the Mediterranean; if this also included religious exchange, I don't know. I think this section borders on "snippet-collecting": it may all be true, but it is also suggestive. Yes, the "babylonian" trade with India, pre-dates these events. Although these sources cite Judaism, instead o babylonian, so they are related. There are commentaries by David Flusser and others, they have described the same, and in fact, it is even more interesting. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Why did you remove the info on Bnei Menashe? The Nominator(of AfD) kept claiming that i have taken content from India-Israel relations, because there is a large paragraph, related to Menashe, but smaller. So I had to lower it. Whenever I have some more content, about "modern" relations, will add. So it will look distinctive. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Just chirping in. India-Israel relations do NOT own the material written there. Although SOME caution should be to avoid wholesale content forking, Bnei Menashe is CLEARLY a sub-topic that should be included within Hinduism and Judaism as well. If you reword the info, you can't be charge of content forking. (Personally, I think MORE should be written about Bnei Menashe at the essentially religious "Hinduism and Judaism" than on the essentially political Indo-Israel relations, but that's just my opinion)Arildnordby (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC) 05:03, 8 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+313)‎ . . Hinduism and Judaism ‎ (additional sources) (current) [rollback [vandalism] Joshua Jonathan: "Trade connections of India and Palestine and Mediterranean Jewish communities did not cease, and later the languages of both cultures started to share the linguistic similarities." - this asks for a further explanation. Obviously, got like 15-20 similar words, even if 3-4 are described. It will be great impression. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#3 User talk:Cullen328 04:07, 8 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+459)‎ . . User talk:Cullen328 ‎ (→‎Need your comment about this AFD: new section) Joshua Jonathan: okay, descent. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Analysis of edits 09 february 2014 Mentors are all asleep See sleeping Beauty, Hafspajen (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#1 &2 Caste system among Indian Christians 13:21, 9 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+3,675)‎ . . Caste system among Indian Christians ‎ 13:23, 9 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+148)‎ . . Caste system among Indian Christians ‎ (→‎Caste discrimination among Christians: a ref fix) Joshua Jonathan: You missed a ref: <ref>{{cite book|title =. That's the only useful comment I have; I can't judhe this topic, though I still have the feeling that it's not neutral. But I have no intention to dig deeper into this topic, so if there are no comments by other users, que sera. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#3 Talk:Caste system among Indian Christians#Reversion to original subject 13:24, 9 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+422)‎ . . Talk:Caste system among Indian Christians ‎ Joshua Jonathan: Hm, interesting comment from Mangoe: "Having now looked at the other sections in the version I reverted from, I see that all this material is already covered in caste and should not be WP:FORKed here. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)" That's a serious allegation, "WP:FORKed". Your response: "I know, but Mangoe you will have to confirm that african castes are based on just race or also ethnicity, and if they are assigned by religions. I have added about christian castes, of Pakistan, Sri lanka. So title can be changed back. There is evidence about Nepal, and others too. Can take some time. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)" You know? So title can be changed back? Looks more like clean-up and eventually AfD... This is the kind of editing which contributes to your reputation of POV-pushing. So, what are you going to do about it? Not in terms of "Yea, but you...", but serious: if this forking, then why should your edits stay? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC) He's unresponsive in this regard. So not really a matter now. Maybe 2 casta's reference was added in caste and this page too. But, it is no more a point really. Haven't talked about it since then. Obviously if user thinks that it is "forked" it shouldn't be added. Just like I had removed some, from other page, after AfD. My response wasn't related to casta this time, but multiple nations. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Analysis of edits 10 february 2014 Mentors are awake! Edit#1 Talk:Voltaire#Islam 10:19, 10 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+3,101)‎ . . Talk:Voltaire ‎ (→‎On Section, Islam: new section) Eh. Look. Hafspajen (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan: @Hafspajen: this is field of expertise isn't it? Could you please comment here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Quite so, facebook, or tumblr are no good references. Wording:With the mess that can be seen on Voltaire#Islam, it has been like 3 weeks and till now - these are not exactly diplomatic words - and probably will not calm down the situation. telling people that they made a mess - even if thety did - not going to make them happy. The references found - Very Good. the resumé quite good - until we get to the end of it - His viewed Jesus to be good, while Christians to be intolerant. He regarded Muhammad to be evil,' - maybe a bit - going a bit fast - it might need some more work. Hafspajen (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Ismejudit is already reacting negative, saying no. No good. One has to find the common points with the other editors. Hafspajen (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Also many of the new references now in the section Voltaires own words, that will do of course. The most serious issue is that the whole section has only this René Pomeau, La religion de Voltaire, A.G Nizet, 1995, as reference. Not enough. For all what we know he might have very weird ideas about Voltaire - even if he is considered to be expert. One expert is not enough. The ideas need to be confirmed by other scholars. Some scholars are weird. Hafspajen (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC) And, as I said at Blades talk page:That section swallowed like a dough, and it should be cut down to half or third. There is no indication that Islam was of such enormous importance for Voltaire. Even if he said some nice things about Islam, and some not so nice, that does not mean that he was overly occupied with it. By the proportion of the section one may think that this was something he was occupying himself with it every day of his life. There is plenty of other stuff that is much more important about him. And so it is. This section is too much. Hafspajen (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Indeed. Just replied to Judith. Like I pointed on my talk page. That there are 100s of things Einstein never said either, same with Gandhi, etc. So Voltaire should be easier to handle, especially when we are dealing with some 1-3 months old facebook copy paste. And JJ I really doubt if there is need of expertise, since everything is depending upon the verifibility of sources(you are great at it).. You really think that 3 year old dead links, of a personal french fan site are sources? or Some 2-3 year old version of French wiki page? That page only needs attention of more editors. Right now it is just me or Judith. Only 2 people. If no one else participate for few hours. I would post it on 3rd Opinion board. We can wait for that. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC) We wait and ask main mentor 74. (Well, IF - If we will ever have a chance.) There was quite a lot of discussions already. And this is where it started.[13] Hafspajen (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC) 74? He is not really active, and I am not sure if they will participate either. He is great at researching, but it is also the matter of interest. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC) He or she has dropped us, blast it. Hafspajen (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC) No, I'm still here. But I am only interested in one thing, right now. This one thing must happen first in the mentorship. Bladesmulti must learn grammar. That is why there is trouble with sources. Look at the horse-worship problem, below. That is a pure error of not understanding. It can only be fixed, if Bladesmulti will do the work which Corinne is asking for. But there is the question of interest. Bladesmulti, are you interested in learning how to understand what the sources say? And how to rewrite their facts neutrally? Then listen to Corinne. Please answer the 8 items I have listed for you to work on, at my user-talkpage, that would be a good start. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#2 &3 &5 Talk:Caste system among Indian Christians#‎Pakistan and Sri Lanka 11:48, 10 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+230)‎ . . Talk:Caste system among Indian Christians ‎ (→‎Pakistan and Sri Lanka) 15:35, 10 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,289)‎ . . Talk:Caste system among Indian Christians ‎ 16:10, 10 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+144)‎ . . Talk:Caste system among Indian Christians Joshua Jonathan: I can only say: listen carefully to Dougweller. He's good, he's critical. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Correct. Knowing that Dougweller never denied Caste system of Christians in Sri lanka. Neither he denied the discrimination in Pakistan. Not fully, but almost proves my point. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Edit#4 Caste system among Indian Christians 11:48, 10 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+152)‎ . . Caste system among Indian Christians ‎ (→‎Sri Lanka: replace) Joshua Jonathan: I think the lead should start with an explanation what caste among Christians is - what the article is about. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC) It will, once we are done of page move. Whole lead, article will need copyediting. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC) No! There was no issue with the horse worship page. Until one user(having lower knowledge about worship) reverted JJ's edit. Seriously. I online time to time these days, on a small break. But I will be active soon. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Horse worship Hi Blades. This is getting difficult, because I started to interfere with the editing there. But serious, the way you're interpreting the sources there is what drives people mad. I've spend at leas 1,5 hors the past few days now over few sentences. The bottomline is very simple: Wikipedia depends on WP:RS; combning sources in such a way that a new interpretation or conclusion is reached is WP:OR. It may seem trivial, and your reasoning is not unlogical, nevertheless, what you're doing there is WP:OR. Gulik does not speak about horse worship; he only says that the horse stood in high esteem. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, it should had been much more accurate, or shouldn't had been added at all. Check my reply there. Made it for more understanding and frequency. I know it is quiet strange, reminds me of Dharmachakra. You are done of all SPI and trouble, you can open "Page move request" now? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Bladesmulti, your sentences above do not make sense to me. This is not grammatical: "Made it for more understanding and frequency." This is not grammatical: "You are done of all SPI and trouble." The other parts also have mistakes, but they are smaller mistakes. It is okay to have small mistakes. This is just a talkpage. Perfect grammar is not required. But you have to write where I can understand you. This makes no sense: "Made it for more understanding and frequency." I have no idea what you mean. That is bad. We must fix that problem. You need to practice re-writing, and you need to practice grammar. That is the only way that you will learn. You must learn to write so that other editors can understand you. Does this make sense? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC) I agree with 74. Your sentences do not make sense. Have you read and studied anything I have written on the Grammar page? CorinneSD (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Replied too. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Bladesmulti, you added this information. Indus Civilization. Worship of Hayagriva is dated to the period of 2,000 BCE or earlier. The inhabitants worshiped horse for its speed, intelligence, strength. To this day, the worship of Hayagriva exists among the followers of Hinduism. References What are the URLs of these sources? Are they on the internet? Where did you find them? I would like to see the original information. Then we can practice together. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "The Indo-Aryans who invaded the Indus valley around 2000 BC worshipped the horse for its speed, strength, and intelligence." by Mārg̲, Volume 43. Although source describes it as migration so, just we described them as "indo aryan people" [14], page 102 from Volker. There was no issue with this page, or these edits, until other guy reverted JJ's edit. Admitting that he know less about horse worship. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC) 11-18 february 2014 Hi Blades. I'm seriously lacking in monitoring your edits; it's more work than I'd expected... Caste system among Christians: Dougweller seems to be monitiruing this; that's good. "I had discovered that there is caste system among the christians of peru, mexico, etc as well, Both historical and present." - I'm not going to dig into that one, but at least it raises questions. Horse worship: well, you seem to be on spealing terms with Montanabw; that's good. requesting third opinion: good. Adimo: "about 2,000 of years before Bible." - and when exactly was the Bible written? useless piece of information. Article: "And regarded to have been replicated into middle eastern legends". Source: "the first created couple in the christian bible were Adam and Eve, while in the Hindoo bible they were Adam and Heva." That's something completey different! I think you're making the same mistake here again: trying to find Indian origins for something, merely illustrating your thoughts with Google-snipptes. Sorry, I', going to add an OR-tag to the article... Hindus nationalism diff: good. Women in Hinduism diff: I can't judge this one; we'll see how others respond. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC) I took a further look at Adimo; looks like you missed some essential information... Mentor-ship is not finished yet. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC) JJ, "Raymond Schwab characterized the Ezour Vedam as an insidious piece of propaganda consisting of certain "Vedic" materials translated by Jesuits with the intention of isolating elements" and it was Willem Caland who regarded it as "pious fraud", while praising many of its material, Caland also says that "however the scope and realization of the book are highly ingenious.". And both of these quotes are probably only 2-3 negative quotes about that book, so its definition cannot be based upon them. And it is disputed if Nobili wrote the book or not. Those who regard it as forged/copied, they haven't really proved that nobili wrote it. But either way, we can go by actual definition if we have to present the description of the book, and it is "or Yajûr Veda." Means it is just french word for Yajur Veda.definition, and infoplease is a reliable source,archive104 and arcive 107. Lead can be like.. "Adimo is the first human, and Heva the first woman, in a creation story in the Ezourvedam. The story about Adimo can be also found in Rigveda." Not more. Description about scriptures is probably undue weight. Because Kersey Graves, Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, etc haven't read voltaire. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC) "There are several editions or parts of the Vedas, that followed it, as the new testament is an addition to the jewish bible. They are called respectively, the "Code of menn", the "ramanayana", the "mahabharat", and the "puranas" or "poranas", says Mr. Graves" and "The Hindoos had an Adimo and Iva, the Hebrews an Adam and Eve." While Kersey Graves was referring to Vedas and religions. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC) And George Smith, is actually George Smith (assyriologist), he probably wrote in his The Chaldean Account of Genesis (1876) about Adimo, being written 2,000 years prior to Bible in a folk tale. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Jean, Baron de Batz regarded the book's scriptural citations were authentic. There is no dispute about the accuracy of the quotes of the book, nor that it has lies. I am sure there are some unverified claims about these books, just like there are claims about William Shakespeare's authorship. But disputed cannot be added on the page of topic, which is clearly different from other one. We have added voltire's opinion in the bottom of the page, which is quiet enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC) I've dropped it at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Adimo. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Article is about "Adimo" than the book we are talking about. And more than this book independently refers the character. See talk. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Chill, I will be back with a better idea. For now, just remember, EzourVedam was first complete translation of Sanskrit Text in western world, only its translator is disputed, not anything else. Its content is not disputed. Bladesmulti (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Maurer's review of Rocher is very clear: the Ezourvedam is a French text, written by Jesuits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [15] First of all, That his how Ezour Vedam should be described, secondly the book has to do nothing with the fact that Adimo is Vedic character. And you should know, I had notified about this page before, on 74's talk Bladesmulti (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC) New topic: "Edit war on Kalapani, territory"

Looks like we've found a new topic to mentor, haven't we? I'll have to take a closer look at the page-history, but at this moment I suggest we pick up the content of this topic at Talk:Kalapani, territory#Deleted sources, and discuss the conduct here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you removed a large amount of text (quotes?) from Voltaire. I know nothing about Voltaire (except for the Ezourvedam), but I suggest the leave Voltaire aside for the moment, and focus on Kalapani, territory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced for long, unaccessible/unknown, unreferenced, google translated version of old french wiki versions, and so on... No one agreed on it, so had to be removed one day. Actually the Kalapani, territory has got numerous mentions. I had found few sources myself, but I thought I will be doing it someday. So probably now. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire, 2014-02-26, edit#1

Bladesmulti, YOU ARE NOT HELPING WIKIPEDIA, when you do this.[16] You are not an expert on Voltaire's view of Islam, Bladesmulti. You do not understand when Voltaire is speaking allegorically, as a way to attack the Catholics, and when he is giving his true position. Grammar is very difficult; you must seek help, when the grammar is tricky. Do you understand? WP:PRIMARY sources must be used with care. You are very anxious to help wikipedia. That is good. But wikipedia is not a religious battleground. That is bad. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Been about 1 month+ Nothing has been sourced there, So i thought for a sec, that it can be reverted now. Though we talked about it previously on mentorship page, as well as talk page of Voltaire page itself. Whole 20,000 bytes of content was brought from french wikipedia, though it was never sourced, but included references to a dead link, a website that is on sale for 3 years. What can be done there? You can tell me. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let us go point by point.

• B. Been about 1 month+

74. Nothing has happened for over a month.

You are wrong. It has been 16 days.[17] WP:DEADLINE applies, what is your hurry? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

1 month in the sense, that it was brought there,24th January. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, was the article-talkpage conversation a month old, or not? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• B. Nothing has been sourced there, OLD ARGUMENT#1, WP:BURDEN, BUT IF THAT DOESN'T WORK I'VE GOT PLENTY MORE

74. Judith has provided no sources.

You are wrong. You deleted the sources.[18] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

NEW ARGUMENT#2, WP:UNDUE, WHO CARES ABOUT WP:SECONDARY. It is probably Undue to write what others think about his views, when we are talking about his views, Bladesmulti (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

NEW ARGUMENT#3, WP:V, MISREPRESENTED SOURCE. but still even if it is not, the first quote by Pierre Milza is misrepresented. He writes in 265 that "It is to denounce the fraud and crimes of the founder of Islam" about play. Some other quotes are misrepresented too. For example, "(the theist) believes that religion consists" which is actually something else, see [19]

NEW ARGUMENT#4, WP:REDUNDANT, REPETITIOUS PROSE. "full of praise for Muslim civilization and for Islam as a rule of life" seems to be correct, but it is repeated on previous paragraph "After later having judged that he had made..." Same with last paragraph of the section. So Repeated material can be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

NEW ARGUMENT#5, WP:SFOD, BLADESMULTI CANNOT BE OUT-ARGUED. And rest of the sources can be replaced with better ones. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, did you delete sources, and claim that WP:BURDEN was the reason, or not? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did, but it wasn't a perfect move, neither it was half great. Thanks for making me realize. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• B. So i thought for a sec, that it can be reverted now.

74. Therefore, I thought for a second that I could revert the Islam-section, back to what it looked like during most of 2013.[20]

You are wrong, you shouldn't have reverted, because there are sources, and there is no deadline. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, how many seconds did you think, before you made up a bunch of new arguments, and pretended not to hear that your WP:BURDEN argument was wrong? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• B. Though we talked about it previously on mentorship page, as well as talk page of Voltaire page itself.

74. We talked about Voltaire at User_talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship#Edit.231_Talk:Voltaire.23Islam, and I also talked with Itsmejudith on Talk:Voltaire#On Section, Islam.

You are correct, you and I talked about Voltaire. You are also correct, that you and Judith talked about Voltaire. Here is what Judith told you: "No, that would ignore the scholarship...." Here is what I told you: "I am only interested in one thing, right now. This one thing must happen first in the mentorship. Bladesmulti must learn grammar. That is why there is trouble with sources." You did not listen to Judith; you deleted her sources. You did not listen to me: you kept trying to work on Voltaire, even though you don't actually understand the sources.

  You must learn grammar FIRST, if you want to understand sources (or talkpages). *I* understand the sources; the revert you made was wrong. I understand the talkpages: Judith told you that you did not understand the scholars. But Bladesmulti, I cannot help *you* understand the sources, and the talkpages, unless you start learning grammar. You are not spending your time working on grammar. You forgot grammar lesson five: advice and advise are different. You are "working" on Voltaire: which means, deleting sources. Look at the comment Doug made, when he restored the sources. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You might be unaware, but no one agreed with the current version on talk pages either, and everyone, including judith had agreed to clean up. But it has been delayed. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you ARE unaware, that Judith was right, and you were wrong. You are the only one who disagreed with Judith, in this section: Talk:Voltaire#On Section, Islam.

  That is not a case where "no one agreed with the current version" in mainspace. That is a case where you made a proposal, and there was no consensus to implement your proposal. But you did not listen: you deleted the sources in mainspace anyways. You did it wrong. Read what Xoloz said about consensus again, and then come back to this part of the mentorship-page. Did you get consensus for your change to Voltaire, where you deleted sources? Or did you just get in a hurry, because the discussion was "too old" in your view, since it got stalled a couple of weeks ago? Then, did you decide to do what you wanted, without any consensus whatsoever? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• B. Whole 20,000 bytes of content was brought from french wikipedia,

74. Itsmejudith translated about 20 kilobytes of content from the French Wikipedia's article fr:Voltaire into English, and put that into Voltaire.

Yes, that is mostly true, although some of the content you deleted was by Inayity (also, Hafspajen with help from Arildnordby modified the sentence about Islam having a clergy... that work was deleted in your revert too, Bladesmulti). 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you did not respond to this point. Do you think Judith did a good thing? Do you think it is legal to bring content from frWiki? Do you think, that since the content was copied from frWiki, that the only source is frWiki? Do you think the refs from frWiki are unreliable, because they are from frWiki? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't helped at all, because everything started with the discovery of a tumblr(Unreliable ref)'s link. It is not actually wrong to bring content from other wikipedias, in fact it is recommended, but Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• B. though it was never sourced, but included references to a dead link, a website that is on sale for 3 years.

74. That new content was never sourced to my satisfaction; some of the the references were to a dead link (a website that has been on sale for 3 years now).

You are wrong. To put it more strongly, you are very very very very VERY wrong. Here is the list of sources: Voltaire(Fanatisme) 1741/1875, Voltaire(Cideville) 1739/1792, Milza 2007, Voltaire(Prussia#2) 1742, Voltaire(Missy) 1743/1856, Pomeau(temps) YYYY, 2*Voltaire(Alcoran) 1748/2008, 3*Pomeau(religion) 1995, Voltaire(Denis) 1751/1792, 4*Voltaire(Moeurs) 1756/1875, 2*Moland(Critique) 1760/1875, Moland(Remarques) 1763/1875, Voltaire(Dictionnaire) 17xx, Nonnotte(erreurs) 1770, Voltaire(Preface) 1754/1875, Neaimi(Lumieres) 2003, Venturino(Imposteur) 2000, Cruysse 2005, Pomeau(Fayard) 1995, Voltaire(Prussia#1) 1740/1869, Volaire(Benedict) 1745, Todd YYYY (LitWinBooks.com), Gunny 1996, Sardar YYYY (shamogoloparvaneh.com), Elmarsafy 2009.

  Possibly, there are a few other sources that I missed. Some of the sources are repeats, such as Pomeau(religion) and Pomeau(Fayard), which I believe are actually the same source. You didn't delete ALL those sources: you did delete most of them, though. How can you think that WP:BURDEN applies? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, and majority of sources are redirecting to a fansite, which is on sale for 3 years+ now. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you said the section you deleted "was never sourced". Is that a true statement? Or is that a false statement? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Few sources lacking page numbers. Completely messed, but I have no worries giving it more time, I am not saying that it will be slashed, but better sources can be added. And repeated text or Undue can be removed. We will see it after weeks or month. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• B. What can be done there? You can tell me.

74. What is the correct way to make progress on Voltaire? Please tell me.

The answer is pretty simple, Bladesmulti. If you want to make progress on the article about Voltaire, you have to learn more English. Right now, you do not understand what Judith is saying on the talkpage. Right now, you do not understand what Pomeau is saying (one of the foremost experts on Voltaire). Right now, you do not understand what Milza, Neaimi, Venturino, and all the other secondary sources are saying. Therefore, until you understand English better, progress will be hard.

  Here is what you should do. Stop worrying about content-disputes, like Voltaire, Ezourvedam, and Adimo. Stop worrying about religion, like Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, and Christianity. Stop worrying about Sati, caste-systems, Kalapani, Nepal, Pakistan, and Africa. You need to focus on one thing: grammar.

  Listen to Corinne. Listen to JJ. Go back, and read over the advice that Arildnordby and Hafspajen gave you. Go back, and listen to Tryptofish. Go back, and listen to Kevin Gorman. Stop fighting in mainspace and on article-talkpages. You do not have to listen. But wikipedia have the five pillars, and you are not following them, the way you are behaving now. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I work on grammar, but I don't really worry about the pages at this moment, like you seems to be thinking. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you are correct, that I think you should worry about grammar, and stop fighting in mainspace. But you also have to have the right attitude: if you fight with people, and ignore what they say, you cannot be a wikipedian, even if you have perfect English. Look at Corinne, her English is wonderful. But more importantly, her attitude is wonderful.

  Look at this example, where Corinne made a mistake. User_talk:CorinneSD#Please_do_not_edit_other_people_comments_on_talk_pages Corinne was helping fix grammar-errors. That is good. But she was fixing them on a talkpage, where they aren't as important, as long as people understand what is being said. So another person asked Corinne not to mess with grammar on talkpages. Corinne said she was sorry. Corinne said she would not make the same mistake again. That is a good attitude. That is a good wikipedian. She is trying hard to help wikipedia! CorinneSD, did you remember this wikiquette lesson? Will you forget it, after 16 days, and decide to fix "the bahd grammahrz on taklpages" even though somebody told you about the WP:TALKPAGE rules?

  Bladesmulti, you have a problem which is 75% grammar. You do not understand complex English very well: for example, you do not understand Milza. But you also have a problem which is 25% attitude. You are always in a big hurry, to move to the next things, so you refuse to admit that you are wrong, and that Judith is right. You refuse to work on grammar, you would rather fight Judith. Will you fix your attitude problem, Bladesmulti? Grammar is hard to teach, but Corinne can do it. However, just like Doug says, attitude is almost impossible to teach, unless the student is willing. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I disagree with these 2 things. First, Judith had created that mess, just like before, blanking pages with "copyright violation" tags.

Second, Milza is not representing anything like it has been claimed. You can show me the actual source if you think I am wrong. And once again, why it is necessary to add anyone's quote in the section that is about one person? WP:DUE applies here. Rather we can add Voltaire's own words. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Language

Bladesmulti, 74 has done a fantastic job of breaking down your last edit and comments, first showing you a better and more complete way to express your ideas, then explaining what you did and should have done, etc. I would just like to add that another way to improve your English is to read more. It might be worthwhile taking some time off from WP and borrowing some books from the library, an assortment of fiction, non-fiction and biography, and reading them. As you read, pay attention to how words are arranged to form sentences, and make lists of unfamiliar words and look them up. Write down the page number in the book where you found the word so that when you look up the word and see multiple definitions, you can locate the one definition that applies in that context. That way, you will learn the various meanings of words and see how they are used. If you don't want to take time off from WP, then perhaps you can spend a little less time on editing and a little more time on reading books. Read the great writers of the 19th and 20th centuries. Read novels, historical novels, mysteries, short stories, adventure stories, science fiction, etc. Read non-fiction in subjects that interest you. Read essays. The more you read, the better your English and your writing will become. Then, understanding sources, other editors' comments, and WP articles will be easier, and your comments will be more easily understood. Your mentors, of course, will be glad to continue working with you.CorinneSD (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

While I don't have any competence in teaching English to anyone, such as Corinn and 74, I have noticed that Bladesmulti often uses some slang/jargon that might be common on some forum boards, but by no means are so when we are tryig to discuss academic sources. The latest example was B's use of "I'm not in awe". I guess most of us understood that along the line "I'm not terribly impressed", whether that was B's intent behind his "not in awe", is extremely difficult to find out. So, however this progresses, it would be of real benefit to B to read more comprehensive, standard sources, and develop the English he wants to communicate in, in tune with that, rather than resorting to obscure, easily misunderstood slang.Arildnordby (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Arildnordby. Good point, Arildnordby. I'd like to add that I recommend using a college level monolingual English dictionary (all English), either a book dictionary or a good on-line dictionary such as Merriam-Webster or the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). You will not only see all the definitions of each word but also examples of how the word is used in a sentence. You will also see the various prepositions (such as "with" and "to") and other constructions that normally follow the word. CorinneSD (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Cultural digression The "old system" (i.e when I grew up in the 80s) where our principal source for being taught English was the carefully thought out, and directed school curriculum helped us foreigners to learn a sort of stilted, Queen's English version (and native English speakers were probably humoured by that). Nowadays, however, it is the autodidactic patchwork principle we see in action, so that native speakers will meet almost stunningly strange (ab)uses of their language by foreigners who have learnt themselves an English of sorts.Arildnordby (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying B didn't go to school. But, when I was in the age range 11-16, I would say 80-90% of what I was exposed to of English was of a school-directed kind, but for a youngster today, what is the percentage of exposure to English from their schools? I wouldn't be surprised if that percentage is in the 30-40 range (there are so many venues for English-speaking today that didn't exist in the 80s!). And, it shows, in how the English they develop actually looks like.Arildnordby (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and many young people today text back and forth and use instant messaging, both of which lend themselves to writing in short, choppy, fragmented sentences. Does that bring anyone to mind?CorinneSD (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Having worked as a teacher (not in English!) previously for some years, I could give you some hundred names that come to mind! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

mentorship proposal: new limit, new focus

Edits so far for UTC_day Feb 26th (mentorship-pages not shown).

• 09:49, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+117)‎ . . Kalapani, territory ‎ (→‎Further reading) (current) continuing an edit-war
• 09:46, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-26)‎ . . User talk:Xoloz ‎ (current) (( see Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians ))
• 09:32, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+29)‎ . . Kalapani, territory ‎ (List of territorial disputes) continuing an edit-war
• 09:30, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+329)‎ . . User talk:Xoloz ‎ (PM) (( see Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians ))
• 09:22, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+337)‎ . . User talk:Xoloz ‎ (→‎Page move: new section) (( see Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians ))
• 09:13, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+696)‎ . . Kalapani, territory ‎ (add bibliographies) continuing an edit-war
• 09:04, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+447)‎ . . Kalapani, territory ‎ (add source) continuing an edit-war
• 09:00, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+411)‎ . . Talk:Kalapani, territory ‎ (multiple sources) (current)
• 08:16, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+20)‎ . . Voltaire ‎ (per request) (current)
• 08:13, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-19,903)‎ . . Voltaire ‎ (WP:Burden and no improvement for 1 month+) continuing an edit-war
• 08:08, 26 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+20)‎ . . Padamji Ginwala ‎ (spacing)

Rationale:

• Bladesmulti is not able to stay under the 5-edit-per-day limitation.
• This is because, I believe, Bladesmult is preoccupied with mainspace. See WP:The_Truth.
• Bladesmulti is concentrating on renewing "old" content-disputes (Kalapani from 20th Dec && Voltaire from a couple weeks ago).
• Bladesmulti, I strongly believe, needs to concentrate fully on learning-not-to-fight. See WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.

Proposal:

• Bladesmulti should voluntarily stay at 0-edits-per-day outside mentorship-pages, for 2 weeks. (Or, if Joshua && Corinne prefer, 1-edit-per-day.)
• Bladesmulti should pick one small topic-area, which is not controversial, to work on.
• Mentors can veto the topic, if it is unacceptable.

CorinneSD, Joshua Jonathan, is this acceptable? The two-week-clock will start if co-mentors agree. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You had proposed 5 edits yes, But I accidentally did more than 4 in a single talk page. So my bad there. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No mainspace, one topic, not caste-system. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think my own, Creation narratives would be the best one, for 1 week. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Too broad. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Abel Bergaigne? It is on my draft. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Just in case you pick Abel Bergaigne (where B has made a good start!), be sure to access this essay by professor of religion Bruce Lincoln, who assesses Bergaigne's contributions, and the line of historians he belongs to, pages 13-32 here. The best of luck!Arildnordby (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it fair topic, as per 74. Good for a week. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism and Hinduism

Joshua_Jonathan (and possibly Arildnordby), can you comment on this deletion please? [21] Sorry, more caste-system stuff, it looks like. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

[22], Joshua is aware about it. He has agreed about the accuracy of article. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire, 2014-02-26, edit#2

Bladesmulti, who requested this change? [23] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, this question is still open. You said that this edit was requested. Who requested it? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

[24] Even though I had expanded and sourced. User is correct here. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So, even though the edit-request was declined by another editor, you decided to make the edit anyways. Here was the decline-reason. "Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration...." Did you read the decline-reason? If not, why not? Were you in too much of a hurry?

  If you did read the reason, why did you fail to first establish consensus for this change, on the article-talkpage? Technical_13 was saying that the change seemed potentially controversial. But you did not pay attention to Techical_13. Why not? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13 is basically uninvolved editor. It is quiet obvious, whoever reviews the edit request, they would likely look for a consensus. Friedrich nietzsche is not defending Voltaire, when he was calling Thomas a "muddlehead". So it cannot be slashed, but added to reference/note. I did it. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Voltaire, 2014-02-26, edit#1

Here is the edit under discussion, which is different from edit#2 above.[25] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(( Bladesmulti has moved most of this content to a mentorship-subpage.[26] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC) ))

I have reverted this. It is this sort of behavior that led to the site ban proposal, and suggests that the mentorship, despite all the hard work of the mentors, is failing. The best mentorship depends upon the goodwill and willingness to cooperate of the editor being mentored, and its failure should not be seen as a failure of the mentors. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I can say that if I was logged into my admin account right now, I would be fully-prepared to issue a block, based on the failure of Blades to follow the restrictions laid out. Those restrictions were what prevented an indef to begin with ES&L 14:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Its okay Dougweller and EatsShootsAndLeaves, thanks for reminding. Hopefully it won't be happening again. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the Islam-content back into Voltaire, Doug. I will note that Bladesmulti reverted that Islam-section back to the 2013 version of the article (which was before Bladesmulti showed up at the Voltaire article), rather than just reverting portions Bladesmulti personally disagreed with. So there is a glimmer of hope.  :-)   The problem is not that Bladesmulti is trying to win a content-dispute, methinks, but simply that Bladesmulti literally doesn't understand the new sources.

  I still think there is a bit of juice left in the voluntary mentorship. Especially if Bladesmulti will voluntarily stop editing outside the mentorship pages for a couple weeks, and concentrate on learning grammar (reading... and writing... but especially willingness to admit failure to grok). That said, if the voluntary focus does not work, then we'll switch to the involuntary focus... and in any case, if another couple-three weeks go by without noticeable progress, then we'll have to call it a day.

  Should we get to April without traction, rather than a site-ban, I might suggest a tailored scheme... narrow throttling. Specifically, Bladesmulti is mostly interested in adding content, and is good at finding sources, and even formatting citation-templates. Writing summary-sentences, and more importantly, evaluating source-quality, is where Bladesmulti has the biggest problems (the stubborn attitude is an exacerbation... but is secondary). Therefore, it might make sense to have a sort of site-wide "Bright Line Rule" for Bladesmulti... based on WP:GRAMMAR rather than based on WP:COI. Bladesmulti can suggest changes on article-talkpages, and use WP:ERQ or WP:TEAHOUSE if necessary. However, to keep Bladesmulti's wikithuisasm in check, methinks we would need to specify no more than one edit per article-talkpage per day. This would permit Bladesmulti to work on a bunch of topics simultaneously, as he loves to do, and provide a bunch of sources, which he is good at, but without risking misunderstood-source-material being stuck into (or deleted from) any portion of mainspace.

  Anyways, I'm not suggesting this bright-line-throttle today, though, because I still think that Bladesmulti may yet listen to Corinne on grammar, and JJ on sourcing. If we end up at AN/I again in a few weeks, the alternative to the bright-line-throttle would be a site ban of several years duration, at least 2 years, so that Bladesmulti could spend some time learning English more thoroughly. Bladesmulti is a good-faith contributor; this is 75% grammar-barrier, and 25% stubborn attitude. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You are doing good work with him, but I still think that he doesn't know enough to judge what is a reliable sources - which is often not easy, of course. Maybe some work on that would be useful. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We have been working on that.  :-)   But to little avail, so far. JJ has been heroically handling most of the sourcing, and Arildnordby has helped with that also. They are doing good work, but for it to help, Bladesmulti must listen.

  Judging what is WP:RS and what is not is always difficult, especially in Bladesmulti's favorite area of religious topics; Ezourvedam tricked Voltaire in the 1760s/1770s, and then tricked Bladesmulti in the 2010s. Methinks the key is for Bladesmulti to learn to *ask* for the opinions of native speakers, and then, instead of fighting with them about it, learn to accept what they say. Bladesmulti is always free to ask multiple people, on the article-talkpage, on the RSN, at WP:TEAHOUSE, or one of the co-mentors. And with time, and experience in English, at some point Bladesmulti will be able to judge the reliable sources with the best of them.

  At the moment, though, Bladesmulti will need help with sourcing, no question about it. More importantly, there is an attitude problem to overcome: Bladesmulti doesn't like asking and waiting, instead, Bladesmulti likes rushing and fighting. Wikipedia isn't for fighting, there are plenty of other websites where that is the norm. Wikipedia is for careful thinking and analysis. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You sure? It happens 1/4 times, I would propose change on talk page first, then wait until there is agreement. Though sometimes information is so uncontroversial and non-conflicting that one would edit the main page. Although I am not denying, but consider improving. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I am on mentorship+grammar for week+ since today.

Site ban was proposed only because of the allegation regarding sock puppet(which included you as well) and allegation about source misrepresentation on a single page. Though none of the charges were proved, they were incorrect. I know mistakes happen from me, but I would rather avoid than committing again. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• B. No worries, I am on mentorship+grammar for week+ since today.

74. Please do not be worried, folks. I am focusing on my mentorship and my grammar, for the next couple weeks, starting today.

Okay, thanks. Until 2014-03-13 at 23:59 UTC, you are on zero-edits-per-day, except for unlimited mentorship-edits. Only make edits to your mentorship-pages, which means, your userpages, and my user-talkpage. If you need JJ or Corinne, you can write a question on your own talkpage, and ping them with Joshua_Jonathan and CorinneSD. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• B. Site ban was proposed only because of the allegation regarding sock puppet(which included you as well)

74. The site ban was only proposed, first of all, because of the sock-puppet allegation. (74, you were accused of being a Bladesmulti sock, remember?)

(( yes, I remember.  ;-)   see reply below )) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• B. and allegation about source misrepresentation on a single page.

74. Second of all, there was an allegation about me misrepresenting a source, on a single article.

(( are you sure it was just one source, on just one article? see reply below )) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• B. Though none of the charges were proved, they were incorrect.

74. None of the charges were proven; they were all incorrect.

  Bladesmulti, you are wrong about the ban-proposal from January 26th. It was proposed because you make people angry. You reply without reading. You read without understanding. You delete sources. You insert sources that you don't fully understand. You argue argue argue, but you do not listen listen listen. The ban proposal on January 26th was not because you make a mistake, every once in a while.

  It was because you fight. It was because you don't understand grammar well enough. If there is another ban-proposal, in March, it will be for the same problem: that you don't understand grammar well enough, but you still fight anyways. Wikipedia is not for fighting. Wikipedia is for summarizing knowledge, into English, from sources. You can help with that, iff you will learn to listen. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• B. I know mistakes happen from me, but I would rather avoid than committing again.

74. I know I make mistakes sometimes, but I try to learn from my mistakes, and avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

  It is okay that your English is not perfect. English is hard! Look at how hard Arildnordby has to work, to learn English and Norwegian. Look at how hard Hafspajen had to work, to learn English and Swedish. Look at how hard Judith had to work, to learn English and French.

Judith's first language is english. Right now JJ is learning english, though his native is Dutch. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

  Bladesmulti, you have to improve your English, if you want to help on English Wikipedia, like those editors help. That means, you have to practice re-writing and summarizing. Practice is the key. Even if you never get good enough to fully understand the sources, you still have to improve somewhat, so that you can understand talkpage-discussions. Mistakes will still happen; but mistakes that turn into fights, are the real problem here. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Very nice, fully agree with what you said. There are probably better ways for presenting views. So that they wouldn't turn into fight. It can be largely avoided, I have overcome that sometimes. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, I'm glad you fully agree. But do you fully understand? Please summarize the main points, that you have learned, just like you did for the message from Xoloz. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Concerning misrepresntation of sources. The Doniger attribution was flawed; the year edition, and page you quoted was totally wrong. But, your quote was correct for another edition of Doniger for that very page! Basically, B, in a heated situation where you on several accounts refused to listen to solid arguments, and somebody re-checks your quote and finds it fallacious (note: I do NOT preclude the possibility that he was the one who happened to use the wrong yearly edition here, rather than you, but the misrepresentation quarrel is based on using two different Doniger editions!), bad faith towards you is easily generated. Be careful about sources, and as long as you struggle with grammar limit yourself to direct online sources so that others might check if your good faith edit also is a "good understanding" of sourceArildnordby (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You see, the allegation was completely like "one source doesn't support, I haven't checked other 2 sources". So who's fault it will be? Then also some edits like [27], [28].. But they are often self reverted[29], [30]. Although, you are also correct about the availability of sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

74. Points that you have noted as part of the discussion that I should not argue without listening the whole thing, and such problem can be solved only if I concentrate on whole thing, that is related to sources, comments, and actual issue. Also that it is very important to keep it least conflicting, practicing will make it better. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)